Deductive reasoning is a crucial logical capability that assists us in solving complex problems based on existing knowledge. Although augmented by Chain-of-Thought prompts, Large Language Models (LLMs) might not follow the correct reasoning paths. Enhancing the deductive reasoning abilities of LLMs, and leveraging their extensive built-in knowledge for various reasoning tasks, remains an open question. Attempting to mimic the human deductive reasoning paradigm, we propose a multi-stage Syllogistic-Reasoning Framework of Thought (SR-FoT) that enables LLMs to perform syllogistic deductive reasoning to handle complex knowledge-based reasoning tasks. Our SR-FoT begins by interpreting the question and then uses the interpretation and the original question to propose a suitable major premise. It proceeds by generating and answering minor premise questions in two stages to match the minor premises. Finally, it guides LLMs to use the previously generated major and minor premises to perform syllogistic deductive reasoning to derive the answer to the original question. Extensive and thorough experiments on knowledge-based reasoning tasks have demonstrated the effectiveness and advantages of our SR-FoT.

Syllogistic reasoning is crucial for Natural Language Inference (NLI). This capability is particularly significant in specialized domains such as biomedicine, where it can support automatic evidence interpretation and scientific discovery. This paper presents SylloBio-NLI, a novel framework that leverages external ontologies to systematically instantiate diverse syllogistic arguments for biomedical NLI. We employ SylloBio-NLI to evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) on identifying valid conclusions and extracting supporting evidence across 28 syllogistic schemes instantiated with human genome pathways. Extensive experiments reveal that biomedical syllogistic reasoning is particularly challenging for zero-shot LLMs, which achieve an average accuracy between 70% on generalized modus ponens and 23% on disjunctive syllogism. At the same time, we found that few-shot prompting can boost the performance of different LLMs, including Gemma (+14%) and LLama-3 (+43%). However, a deeper analysis shows that both techniques exhibit high sensitivity to superficial lexical variations, highlighting a dependency between reliability, models' architecture, and pre-training regime. Overall, our results indicate that, while in-context examples have the potential to elicit syllogistic reasoning in LLMs, existing models are still far from achieving the robustness and consistency required for safe biomedical NLI applications.

Recent studies on logical reasoning in auto-regressive Language Models (LMs) have sparked a debate on whether such models can learn systematic reasoning principles during pre-training or merely exploit superficial patterns in the training data. This paper presents a mechanistic interpretation of syllogistic reasoning in LMs to further enhance our understanding of internal dynamics. Specifically, we present a methodology for circuit discovery aimed at disentangling content-independent reasoning mechanisms from world knowledge acquired during pre-training. Through two distinct intervention methods, we uncover a sufficient and necessary circuit involving middle-term suppression that elucidates how LMs transfer information to derive valid conclusions from premises. Furthermore, we investigate how belief biases manifest in syllogistic reasoning, finding evidence of partial contamination from additional attention heads responsible for encoding commonsense and contextualized knowledge. Finally, we explore the generalization of the discovered mechanisms across various syllogistic schemes and model sizes, finding that the identified circuit is sufficient and necessary for all the schemes on which the model achieves high downstream accuracy ($\geq$ 60\%). Overall, our findings suggest that LMs indeed learn transferable content-independent reasoning mechanisms, but that, at the same time, such mechanisms do not involve generalisable and abstract logical primitives, being susceptible to contamination by the same world knowledge acquired during pre-training.

This paper explores the question of how accurately current large language models can perform logical reasoning in natural language, with an emphasis on whether these models exhibit reasoning biases similar to humans. Specifically, our study focuses on syllogistic reasoning, a form of deductive reasoning extensively studied in cognitive science as a natural form of human reasoning. We present a syllogism dataset called NeuBAROCO, which consists of syllogistic reasoning problems in English and Japanese. This dataset was originally designed for psychological experiments to assess human reasoning capabilities using various forms of syllogisms. Our experiments with leading large language models indicate that these models exhibit reasoning biases similar to humans, along with other error tendencies. Notably, there is significant room for improvement in reasoning problems where the relationship between premises and hypotheses is neither entailment nor contradiction. We also present experimental results and in-depth analysis using a new Chain-of-Thought prompting method, which asks LLMs to translate syllogisms into abstract logical expressions and then explain their reasoning process. Our analysis using this method suggests that the primary limitations of LLMs lie in the reasoning process itself rather than the interpretation of syllogisms.

The success of Large Language Models (LLMs), e.g., ChatGPT, is witnessed by their planetary popularity, their capability of human-like communication, and also by their steadily improved reasoning performance. However, it remains unclear whether LLMs reason. It is an open problem how traditional neural networks can be qualitatively extended to go beyond the statistic paradigm and achieve high-level cognition. Here, we present a novel qualitative extension by generalising computational building blocks from vectors to spheres. We propose Sphere Neural Networks (SphNNs) for human-like reasoning through model construction and inspection, and develop SphNN for syllogistic reasoning, a microcosm of human rationality. SphNN is a hierarchical neuro-symbolic Kolmogorov-Arnold geometric GNN, and uses a neuro-symbolic transition map of neighbourhood spatial relations to transform the current sphere configuration towards the target. SphNN is the first neural model that can determine the validity of long-chained syllogistic reasoning in one epoch without training data, with the worst computational complexity of O(N). SphNN can evolve into various types of reasoning, such as spatio-temporal reasoning, logical reasoning with negation and disjunction, event reasoning, neuro-symbolic unification, and humour understanding (the highest level of cognition). All these suggest a new kind of Herbert A. Simon's scissors with two neural blades. SphNNs will tremendously enhance interdisciplinary collaborations to develop the two neural blades and realise deterministic neural reasoning and human-bounded rationality and elevate LLMs to reliable psychological AI. This work suggests that the non-zero radii of spheres are the missing components that prevent traditional deep-learning systems from reaching the realm of rational reasoning and cause LLMs to be trapped in the swamp of hallucination.

The reasoning abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) are becoming a central focus of study in NLP. In this paper, we consider the case of syllogistic reasoning, an area of deductive reasoning studied extensively in logic and cognitive psychology. Previous research has shown that pre-trained LLMs exhibit reasoning biases, such as $\textit{content effects}$, avoid answering that $\textit{no conclusion follows}$, display human-like difficulties, and struggle with multi-step reasoning. We contribute to this research line by systematically investigating the effects of chain-of-thought reasoning, in-context learning (ICL), and supervised fine-tuning (SFT) on syllogistic reasoning, considering syllogisms with conclusions that support or violate world knowledge, as well as ones with multiple premises. Crucially, we go beyond the standard focus on accuracy, with an in-depth analysis of the conclusions generated by the models. Our results suggest that the behavior of pre-trained LLMs can be explained by heuristics studied in cognitive science and that both ICL and SFT improve model performance on valid inferences, although only the latter mitigates most reasoning biases without harming model consistency.

A central component of rational behavior is logical inference: the process of determining which conclusions follow from a set of premises. Psychologists have documented several ways in which humans' inferences deviate from the rules of logic. Do language models, which are trained on text generated by humans, replicate these biases, or are they able to overcome them? Focusing on the case of syllogisms -- inferences from two simple premises, which have been studied extensively in psychology -- we show that larger models are more logical than smaller ones, and also more logical than humans. At the same time, even the largest models make systematic errors, some of which mirror human reasoning biases such as ordering effects and logical fallacies. Overall, we find that language models mimic the human biases included in their training data, but are able to overcome them in some cases.

This paper investigates whether current large language models exhibit biases in logical reasoning, similar to humans. Specifically, we focus on syllogistic reasoning, a well-studied form of inference in the cognitive science of human deduction. To facilitate our analysis, we introduce a dataset called NeuBAROCO, originally designed for psychological experiments that assess human logical abilities in syllogistic reasoning. The dataset consists of syllogistic inferences in both English and Japanese. We examine three types of biases observed in human syllogistic reasoning: belief biases, conversion errors, and atmosphere effects. Our findings demonstrate that current large language models struggle more with problems involving these three types of biases.

Understanding the fundamentals of human reasoning is central to the development of any system built to closely interact with humans. Cognitive science pursues the goal of modeling human-like intelligence from a theory-driven perspective with a strong focus on explainability. Syllogistic reasoning as one of the core domains of human reasoning research has seen a surge of computational models being developed over the last years. However, recent analyses of models' predictive performances revealed a stagnation in improvement. We believe that most of the problems encountered in cognitive science are not due to the specific models that have been developed but can be traced back to the peculiarities of behavioral data instead. Therefore, we investigate potential data-related reasons for the problems in human reasoning research by comparing model performances on human and artificially generated datasets. In particular, we apply collaborative filtering recommenders to investigate the adversarial effects of inconsistencies and noise in data and illustrate the potential for data-driven methods in a field of research predominantly concerned with gaining high-level theoretical insight into a domain. Our work (i) provides insight into the levels of noise to be expected from human responses in reasoning data, (ii) uncovers evidence for an upper-bound of performance that is close to being reached urging for an extension of the modeling task, and (iii) introduces the tools and presents initial results to pioneer a new paradigm for investigating and modeling reasoning focusing on predicting responses for individual human reasoners.