We introduce SATBench, a benchmark for evaluating the logical reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) through logical puzzles derived from Boolean satisfiability (SAT) problems. Unlike prior work that focuses on inference rule-based reasoning, which often involves deducing conclusions from a set of premises, our approach leverages the search-based nature of SAT problems, where the objective is to find a solution that fulfills a specified set of logical constraints. Each instance in SATBench is generated from a SAT formula, then translated into a puzzle using LLMs. The generation process is fully automated and allows for adjustable difficulty by varying the number of clauses. All 2100 puzzles are validated through both LLM-based and solver-based consistency checks, with human validation on a subset. Experimental results show that even the strongest model, o4-mini, achieves only 65.0% accuracy on hard UNSAT problems, close to the random baseline of 50%. Our error analysis reveals systematic failures such as satisfiability bias, context inconsistency, and condition omission, highlighting limitations of current LLMs in search-based logical reasoning. Our code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/Anjiang-Wei/SATBench

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable proficiency in language understanding and have been successfully applied to a variety of real-world tasks through task-specific fine-tuning or prompt engineering. Despite these advancements, it remains an open question whether LLMs are fundamentally capable of reasoning and planning, or if they primarily rely on recalling and synthesizing information from their training data. In our research, we introduce a novel task -- Minesweeper -- specifically designed in a format unfamiliar to LLMs and absent from their training datasets. This task challenges LLMs to identify the locations of mines based on numerical clues provided by adjacent opened cells. Successfully completing this task requires an understanding of each cell's state, discerning spatial relationships between the clues and mines, and strategizing actions based on logical deductions drawn from the arrangement of the cells. Our experiments, including trials with the advanced GPT-4 model, indicate that while LLMs possess the foundational abilities required for this task, they struggle to integrate these into a coherent, multi-step logical reasoning process needed to solve Minesweeper. These findings highlight the need for further research to understand and nature of reasoning capabilities in LLMs under similar circumstances, and to explore pathways towards more sophisticated AI reasoning and planning models.