A neuro-symbolic pipeline is proposed that uses large language models to generate intermediate implicit premises that are translated into logical formulae and used with logical formulae representing explicit premises and explicit claims to show the logical relationships between them (entailment, contradiction, or neutrality).
Abstract
The logical reconstruction of argument graphs from natural language text is challenging because of the prevalence of enthymemes (i.e., arguments with implicit premises). There are natural language processing methods for identifying enthymemes in text, and there are symbolic methods based on abduction for identifying missing premises in a logical representation of enthymemes. However, there is a need for methods to generate implicit premises to logically show a known entailment or contradiction relationship between a pair of statements. To address this, we propose a neuro-symbolic pipeline that uses large language models (LLMs) to generate intermediate implicit premises that are translated into logical formulae and used with logical formulae representing explicit premises and explicit claims to show the logical relationships between them (entailment, contradiction, or neutrality). Our approach is evaluated on the Microtext Argumentative Corpus.
Arguments often omit premises or claims, forming enthymemes. We study pairwise logical selection between two candidates for the omitted component. Existing natural language methods can identify or generate candidates but often do not expose how the selected candidate completes the inference, while logic-based approaches usually assume that the required formulae and background knowledge are available. We extend a prior neuro-symbolic pipeline from missing-premise to missing-claim selection and replace binary entailment outcomes with logical-resistance scores. Top-Link uses weighted Partial MaxSAT under a single configuration of highest-confidence semantic links. We then introduce Possible-World Atom-Link Formalization (PWAL), which keeps translated formulae fixed and marginalizes logical resistance over alternative cross-formula semantic-link configurations. We evaluate PWAL on five tasks: ARCT and a CDED-derived task for missing-premise selection, iDebate- and AAE2-derived tasks for missing-claim selection, and alphaNLI for abductive hypothesis selection. Relative to Top-Link, PWAL raises strict accuracy by 2.95-30.86 percentage points and reduces tie rates by 4.57-58.00 percentage points on all five tasks. When ties receive half credit, accuracy still increases by 0.45-6.04 percentage points. PWAL also records the translated formulae, sampled link configurations, and resistance components for every comparison, providing a transparent trace of each score.
Despite great performance on many tasks, language models (LMs) still struggle with reasoning, sometimes providing responses that cannot possibly be true because they stem from logical incoherence. Extending on the arguments of Asher and Bhar (2024), we show that logical incoherencies follow from an LLM’s computation of its internal representations, in particular from an LLM’s failure to take account of the different roles that different expressions may play in determining content. Linguistics and logicians have shown the importance of the fact that logical operators provide a structure on which to compute content recursively. We extend this view of logical tokens to structure at the discursive level with an eye to improving pragmatic reasoning as well as deductive reasoning. The key in reasoning is that these structures introduce
operations over an LM’s latent representations that constrain how they may evolve
. We show how LLMs can leverage those structures.
Nicholas Asher, Swarnadeep Bhar· Topoi· 0 citations
The automatic structural analysis of legal texts is a cornerstone of legal technology, yet the extraction of their logical components remains a significant challenge. In this paper, we introduce the task of identifying and segmenting legal conditions (Tatbestand) and legal consequences (Rechtsfolge) within German statutory texts. To support this task, we present ANNOTARES (Annotations of Tatbestand-Rechtsfolge Sequences), a novel dataset comprising German law texts with span-level annotations. Spanning three distinct legal codes, the dataset is designed to evaluate both domain-specific performance and cross-statute generalizability. We benchmark diverse architectural approaches: a rule-based baseline, CRFs, BiLSTMs, BiLSTM-CRF, and modern Transformer-based models, including BERT variants and LLM-based methods. Our results demonstrate that BERT and LLM-based models achieve superior performance in capturing the complex syntactic structures of legal language. We release our dataset to facilitate further research in automated legal reasoning.
It is proved that logical embeddings encapsulate the logical semantics of an argument, allowing for a better representation of its meaning, and that this encoding is optimal, in the sense that no logical information is lost in the process.
This work presents the first systematic study of inverse relation directionality in LLMs, using a benchmark consisting of 5,457 instances spanning 27 distinct inverse relation labels and reveals systematic asymmetries in inverse relation classification across LLMs.
A new method, called CW-Net, translates the reasoning process of an autonomous vehicle’s AI system into understandable concepts that explain its behavior.
