← 研踪 PaperTrailarXiv:2606.23238 · v3
HOLogicBench: Evaluating Higher-Order Logical Reasoning in LLMs
首次提交 2026-06-22 20:23
版本更新 2026-10-26 23:08
雷达观测 2026-10-29 00:35
摘要
Existing LLM logical-reasoning benchmarks largely focus on object-level inference under fixed predicates and rules, leaving higher-order reasoning over rules and policies underexplored. We introduce HOLogicBench, a 1,379-instance benchmark that systematically evaluates five representative higher-order reasoning operations, with Isabelle/HOL formalizations and proof-verified answers. Beyond answer accuracy, HOLogicBench provides solver-verified reference reasoning paths for each instance, enabling fine-grained evaluation of model-generated reasoning against valid derivations. Across 16 model configurations, average accuracy is 53.86\%, with the best configuration reaching 65.99\%. Further analyses reveal that LLMs exhibit limited alignment with valid derivations, remain vulnerable to minimal counterfactual perturbations, and display distinct failure patterns across higher-order reasoning types.
观测到的版本
相邻记录可能跳过中间版本；首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。
v3 · 2026-10-26 23:08 · 最新观测版本
HOLogicBench: Evaluating Higher-Order Logical Reasoning in LLMs
Existing LLM logical-reasoning benchmarks largely focus on object-level inference under fixed predicates and rules, leaving higher-order reasoning over rules and policies underexplored. We introduce HOLogicBench, a 1,379-instance benchmark that systematically evaluates five representative higher-order reasoning operations, with Isabelle/HOL formalizations and proof-verified answers. Beyond answer accuracy, HOLogicBench provides solver-verified reference reasoning paths for each instance, enabling fine-grained evaluation of model-generated reasoning against valid derivations. Across 16 model configurations, average accuracy is 53.86\%, with the best configuration reaching 65.99\%. Further analyses reveal that LLMs exhibit limited alignment with valid derivations, remain vulnerable to minimal counterfactual perturbations, and display distinct failure patterns across higher-order reasoning types.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗