PreprintCited by 111Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesMultimodal Machine Learning Applications

Evaluating the logical reasoning ability of chatgpt and GPT-4

Open access
Liu, Hanmeng, Ning, Ruoxi, Teng, Zhiyang, Liu, Jian, Zhou, Qiji, Zhang, Yue·2023·arXiv

Abstract

Harnessing logical reasoning ability is a comprehensive natural language understanding endeavor. With the release of Generative Pretrained Transformer 4 (GPT-4), highlighted as "advanced" at reasoning tasks, we are eager to learn the GPT-4 performance on various logical reasoning tasks. This report analyses multiple logical reasoning datasets, with popular benchmarks like LogiQA and ReClor, and newly-released datasets like AR-LSAT. We test the multi-choice reading comprehension and natural language inference tasks with benchmarks requiring logical reasoning. We further construct a logical reasoning out-of-distribution dataset to investigate the robustness of ChatGPT and GPT-4. We also make a performance comparison between ChatGPT and GPT-4. Experiment results show that ChatGPT performs significantly better than the RoBERTa fine-tuning method on most logical reasoning benchmarks. With early access to the GPT-4 API we are able to conduct intense experiments on the GPT-4 model. The results show GPT-4 yields even higher performance on most logical reasoning datasets. Among benchmarks, ChatGPT and GPT-4 do relatively well on well-known datasets like LogiQA and ReClor. However, the performance drops significantly when handling newly released and out-of-distribution datasets. Logical reasoning remains challenging for ChatGPT and GPT-4, especially on out-of-distribution and natural language inference datasets. We release the prompt-style logical reasoning datasets as a benchmark suite and name it LogiEval.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2304.03439

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • LLMs demonstrate robust arithmetic reasoning capabilities and excel in logical reasoning.

    “LLMsdemonstrate robust arithmetic reasoning capabilities [159] and excel in logical reasoning [124].”

    From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [124]

    The citation to this paper is attached to the logical-reasoning clause, not the arithmetic-reasoning clause. The Conclusion reports that ChatGPT and GPT-4 outperform a traditional fine-tuning method on most logical-reasoning benchmarks, but also says they struggle with new and out-of-distribution data and do not perform especially well on logical-reasoning NLI tasks. Thus, 'excel' overstates the paper's qualified finding. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • LLMs still struggle with complex logical reasoning problems.

    “Despite the advances of LLMs, they still struggle with complex logical reasoning problems (Liu et al., 2023b).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam Mc- Candlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learn- ers. CoRR, abs/2005.14165. · arXiv
  2. Maxwell John Cresswell. 1973. Logics and languages (1st ed.). Routledge.
  3. Ido Dagan, Oren Glickman, and Bernardo Magnini. 2005. The pascal recognising textual entailment challenge. In Proc. of ICML.
  4. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language under- standing. CoRR.
  5. Pratik Joshi, Somak Aditya, Aalok Sathe, and Mono- jit Choudhury. 2020. Taxinli: Taking a ride up the NLU hill. CoRR.
  6. Hanmeng Liu, Leyang Cui, Jian Liu, and Yue Zhang. 2020. Natural language inference in context -inves- tigating contextual reasoning over long texts. CoRR.
  7. Y. Liu, M. Ott, N. Goyal, J. Du, M. Joshi, D. Chen, O. Levy, M. Lewis, L. Zettlemoyer, and V. Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretrain- ing approach. arXiv.
  8. Bill MacCartney and Christopher D. Manning. 2007a. Natural logic for textual inference. In Proceedings of the ACL-PASCAL Workshop on Textual Entail- ment and Paraphrasing.
  9. Bill MacCartney and Christopher D Manning. 2007b. Natural logic for textual inference. In Proceedings of the ACL-PASCAL Workshop on Textual Entail- ment and Paraphrasing. OpenAI. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report.
  10. Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2019. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text trans- former. CoRR.
  11. Swarnadeep Saha, Yixin Nie, and Mohit Bansal. 2020. Conjnli: Natural language inference over conjunc- tive sentences. CoRR.
  12. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. CoRR.
  13. Alex Wang, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Fe- lix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel Bowman. 2018. GLUE: A multi-task benchmark and analysis plat- form for natural language understanding. In Pro- ceedings of the 2018 EMNLP Workshop Black- boxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Net- works for NLP.
  14. Siyuan Wang, Zhongkun Liu, Wanjun Zhong, Ming Zhou, Zhongyu Wei, Zhumin Chen, and Nan Duan. 2022. From lsat: The progress and challenges of complex reasoning. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Au- dio, Speech, and Language Processing.
  15. Adina Williams, Nikita Nangia, and Samuel Bowman. 2018a. A broad-coverage challenge corpus for sen- tence understanding through inference. In Proc. of NAACL.
  16. Hitomi Yanaka, Koji Mineshima, Daisuke Bekki, Ken- taro Inui, Satoshi Sekine, , and Johan Bos. 2019a. Help: A dataset for identifying shortcomings of neu- ral models in monotonicity reasoning. In Proceed- ings of the Eighth Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics (*SEM2019).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Liu, H., Ning, R., Teng, Z., Liu, J., Zhou, Q., & Zhang, Y.
Affiliations
  • Westlake University (CN)
  • Zhejiang University (CN)
  • Nanyang Technological University (SG)
  • Fudan University (CN)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4363671827
Cited by
100
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
Keywords
logical reasoning, ChatGPT, GPT-4, natural language inference, reading comprehension, benchmark dataset, large language models

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review