In this paper, we present our submission to the MM-ArgFallacy2025 shared task, which aims to advance research in multimodal argument mining, focusing on logical fallacies in political debates. Our approach uses pretrained Transformer-based models and proposes several ways to leverage context. In the fallacy classification subtask, our models achieved macro F1-scores of 0.4444 (text), 0.3559 (audio), and 0.4403 (multimodal). Our multimodal model showed performance comparable to the text-only model, suggesting potential for improvements.
Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved significant progress in language understanding and reasoning. Evaluating and analyzing their logical reasoning abilities has therefore become essential. However, existing datasets and benchmarks are often limited to overly simplistic, unnatural, or contextually constrained examples. In response to the growing demand, we introduce SmartyPat-Bench, a challenging, naturally expressed, and systematically labeled benchmark derived from real-world high-quality Reddit posts containing subtle logical fallacies. Unlike existing datasets and benchmarks, it provides more detailed annotations of logical fallacies and features more diverse data. To further scale up the study and address the limitations of manual data collection and labeling - such as fallacy-type imbalance and labor-intensive annotation - we introduce SmartyPat, an automated framework powered by logic programming-based oracles. SmartyPat utilizes Prolog rules to systematically generate logically fallacious statements, which are then refined into fluent natural-language sentences by LLMs, ensuring precise fallacy representation. Extensive evaluation demonstrates that SmartyPat produces fallacies comparable in subtlety and quality to human-generated content and significantly outperforms baseline methods. Finally, experiments reveal nuanced insights into LLM capabilities, highlighting that while excessive reasoning steps hinder fallacy detection accuracy, structured reasoning enhances fallacy categorization performance.
The advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) has greatly improved our ability to process complex language. However, accurately detecting logical fallacies remains a significant challenge. This study presents a novel and effective prompt formulation approach for logical fallacy detection, applicable in both supervised (fine-tuned) and unsupervised (zero-shot) settings. Our method enriches input text incorporating implicit contextual information -- counterarguments, explanations, and goals -- which we query for validity within the context of the argument. We then rank these queries based on confidence scores to inform classification. We evaluate our approach across multiple datasets from 5 domains, covering 29 distinct fallacy types, using models from the GPT and LLaMA series. The results show substantial improvements over state-of-the-art models, with F1 score increases of up to 0.60 in zero-shot settings and up to 0.45 in fine-tuned models. Extensive analyses further illustrate why and how our method excels.
Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have shown that they can answer questions requiring complex reasoning. However, their ability to identify and respond to text containing logical fallacies or deliberately misleading premises remains less studied. To address this gap, we introduce RuozhiBench, a bilingual dataset comprising 677 carefully curated questions that contain various forms of deceptive reasoning, meticulously crafted through extensive human effort and expert review. In a comprehensive evaluation of 17 LLMs from 5 Series over RuozhiBench using both open-ended and two-choice formats, we conduct extensive analyses on evaluation protocols and result patterns. Despite their high scores on conventional benchmarks, these models showed limited ability to detect and reason correctly about logical fallacies, with even the best-performing model, Claude-3-haiku, achieving only 62% accuracy compared to the human of more than 90%.
Logical fallacy uses invalid or faulty reasoning in the construction of a statement. Despite the prevalence and harmfulness of logical fallacies, detecting and classifying logical fallacies still remains a challenging task. We observe that logical fallacies often use connective words to indicate an intended logical relation between two arguments, while the argument semantics does not actually support the logical relation. Inspired by this observation, we propose to build a logical structure tree to explicitly represent and track the hierarchical logic flow among relation connectives and their arguments in a statement. Specifically, this logical structure tree is constructed in an unsupervised manner guided by the constituency tree and a taxonomy of connectives for ten common logical relations, with relation connectives as non-terminal nodes and textual arguments as terminal nodes, and the latter are mostly elementary discourse units. We further develop two strategies to incorporate the logical structure tree into LLMs for fallacy reasoning. Firstly, we transform the tree into natural language descriptions and feed the textualized tree into LLMs as a part of the hard text prompt. Secondly, we derive a relation-aware tree embedding and insert the tree embedding into LLMs as a soft prompt. Experiments on benchmark datasets demonstrate that our approach based on logical structure tree significantly improves precision and recall for both fallacy detection and fallacy classification.
Health-related misinformation claims often falsely cite a credible biomedical publication as evidence, which superficially appears to support the false claim. The publication does not really support the claim, but a reader could believe it thanks to the use of logical fallacies. Here, we aim to detect and to highlight such fallacies, which requires carefully assessing the exact content of the misrepresented publications. To achieve this, we introduce MissciPlus, an extension of the fallacy detection dataset Missci. MissciPlus builds on Missci by grounding the applied fallacies in real-world passages from misrepresented studies. This creates a realistic test-bed for detecting and verbalizing these fallacies under real-world input conditions, and enables novel passage-retrieval tasks. MissciPlus is the first logical fallacy dataset which pairs the real-world misrepresented evidence with incorrect claims, identical to the input to evidence-based fact-checking models. With MissciPlus, we i) benchmark retrieval models in identifying passages that support claims only when fallacies are applied, ii) evaluate how well LLMs articulate fallacious reasoning from misrepresented scientific passages, and iii) assess the effectiveness of fact-checking models in refuting claims that misrepresent biomedical research. Our findings show that current fact-checking models struggle to use relevant passages from misrepresented publications to refute misinformation. Moreover, these passages can mislead LLMs into accepting false claims as true.
Despite the remarkable performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) in natural language processing tasks, they still struggle with generating logically sound arguments, resulting in potential risks such as spreading misinformation. To address this issue, we introduce FIPO, a fallacy-informed framework that leverages preference optimization methods to steer LLMs toward logically sound arguments. FIPO includes a classification loss, to capture the fine-grained information on fallacy types. Our results on argumentation datasets show that our method reduces the fallacy errors by up to 17.5%. Furthermore, our human evaluation results indicate that the quality of the generated arguments by our method significantly outperforms the fine-tuned baselines, as well as other preference optimization methods, such as DPO. These findings highlight the importance of ensuring models are aware of logical fallacies for effective argument generation. Our code is available at github.com/lucamouchel/Logical-Fallacies.
Recent advancements have seen Large Language Models (LLMs) and Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) surpassing general human capabilities in various tasks, approaching the proficiency level of human experts across multiple domains. With traditional benchmarks becoming less challenging for these models, new rigorous challenges are essential to gauge their advanced abilities. In this work, we present OlympiadBench, an Olympiad-level bilingual multimodal scientific benchmark, featuring 8,476 problems from Olympiad-level mathematics and physics competitions, including the Chinese college entrance exam. Each problem is detailed with expert-level annotations for step-by-step reasoning. Evaluating top-tier models on OlympiadBench, we implement a comprehensive assessment methodology to accurately evaluate model responses. Notably, the best-performing model, GPT-4V, attains an average score of 17.97% on OlympiadBench, with a mere 10.74% in physics, highlighting the benchmark rigor and the intricacy of physical reasoning. Our analysis orienting GPT-4V points out prevalent issues with hallucinations, knowledge omissions, and logical fallacies. We hope that our challenging benchmark can serve as a valuable resource for helping future AGI research endeavors. The data and evaluation code are available at \url{https://github.com/OpenBMB/OlympiadBench}
Logical reasoning has been an ongoing pursuit in the field of AI. Despite significant advancements made by large language models (LLMs), they still struggle with complex logical reasoning problems. To enhance reasoning performance, one promising direction is scalable oversight, which requires LLMs to identify their own errors and then improve by themselves. Various self-verification methods have been proposed in pursuit of this goal. Nevertheless, whether existing models understand their own errors well is still under investigation. In this paper, we take a closer look at the self-verification abilities of LLMs in the context of logical reasoning, focusing on their ability to identify logical fallacies accurately. We introduce a dataset, FALLACIES, containing 232 types of reasoning fallacies categorized in a hierarchical taxonomy. By conducting exhaustive experiments on FALLACIES, we obtain comprehensive and detailed analyses of a series of models on their verification abilities. Our main findings suggest that existing LLMs could struggle to identify fallacious reasoning steps accurately and may fall short of guaranteeing the validity of self-verification methods. Drawing from these observations, we offer suggestions for future research and practical applications of self-verification methods.
This paper investigates the rational thinking capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) in multi-round argumentative debates by exploring the impact of fallacious arguments on their logical reasoning performance. More specifically, we present Logic Competence Measurement Benchmark (LOGICOM), a diagnostic benchmark to assess the robustness of LLMs against logical fallacies. LOGICOM involves two agents: a persuader and a debater engaging in a multi-round debate on a controversial topic, where the persuader tries to convince the debater of the correctness of its claim. First, LOGICOM assesses the potential of LLMs to change their opinions through reasoning. Then, it evaluates the debater's performance in logical reasoning by contrasting the scenario where the persuader employs logical fallacies against one where logical reasoning is used. We use this benchmark to evaluate the performance of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 using a dataset containing controversial topics, claims, and reasons supporting them. Our findings indicate that both GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 can adjust their opinion through reasoning. However, when presented with logical fallacies, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 are erroneously convinced 41% and 69% more often, respectively, compared to when logical reasoning is used. Finally, we introduce a new dataset containing over 5k pairs of logical vs. fallacious arguments. The source code and dataset of this work are made publicly available.
The ease and speed of spreading misinformation and propaganda on the Web motivate the need to develop trustworthy technology for detecting fallacies in natural language arguments. However, state-of-the-art language modeling methods exhibit a lack of robustness on tasks like logical fallacy classification that require complex reasoning. In this paper, we propose a Case-Based Reasoning method that classifies new cases of logical fallacy by language-modeling-driven retrieval and adaptation of historical cases. We design four complementary strategies to enrich input representation for our model, based on external information about goals, explanations, counterarguments, and argument structure. Our experiments in in-domain and out-of-domain settings indicate that Case-Based Reasoning improves the accuracy and generalizability of language models. Our ablation studies suggest that representations of similar cases have a strong impact on the model performance, that models perform well with fewer retrieved cases, and that the size of the case database has a negligible effect on the performance. Finally, we dive deeper into the relationship between the properties of the retrieved cases and the model performance.
The spread of misinformation, propaganda, and flawed argumentation has been amplified in the Internet era. Given the volume of data and the subtlety of identifying violations of argumentation norms, supporting information analytics tasks, like content moderation, with trustworthy methods that can identify logical fallacies is essential. In this paper, we formalize prior theoretical work on logical fallacies into a comprehensive three-stage evaluation framework of detection, coarse-grained, and fine-grained classification. We adapt existing evaluation datasets for each stage of the evaluation. We employ three families of robust and explainable methods based on prototype reasoning, instance-based reasoning, and knowledge injection. The methods combine language models with background knowledge and explainable mechanisms. Moreover, we address data sparsity with strategies for data augmentation and curriculum learning. Our three-stage framework natively consolidates prior datasets and methods from existing tasks, like propaganda detection, serving as an overarching evaluation testbed. We extensively evaluate these methods on our datasets, focusing on their robustness and explainability. Our results provide insight into the strengths and weaknesses of the methods on different components and fallacy classes, indicating that fallacy identification is a challenging task that may require specialized forms of reasoning to capture various classes. We share our open-source code and data on GitHub to support further work on logical fallacy identification.
Reasoning is central to human intelligence. However, fallacious arguments are common, and some exacerbate problems such as spreading misinformation about climate change. In this paper, we propose the task of logical fallacy detection, and provide a new dataset (Logic) of logical fallacies generally found in text, together with an additional challenge set for detecting logical fallacies in climate change claims (LogicClimate). Detecting logical fallacies is a hard problem as the model must understand the underlying logical structure of the argument. We find that existing pretrained large language models perform poorly on this task. In contrast, we show that a simple structure-aware classifier outperforms the best language model by 5.46% on Logic and 4.51% on LogicClimate. We encourage future work to explore this task as (a) it can serve as a new reasoning challenge for language models, and (b) it can have potential applications in tackling the spread of misinformation. Our dataset and code are available at https://github.com/causalNLP/logical-fallacy