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.
Propagandists use rhetorical devices that rely on logical fallacies and emotional appeals to advance their agendas. Recognizing these techniques is key to making informed decisions. Recent advances in Natural Language Processing (NLP) have enabled the development of systems capable of detecting manipulative content. In this study, we look at several Large Language Models and their performance in detecting propaganda techniques in news articles. We compare the performance of these LLMs with transformer-based models. We find that, while GPT-4 demonstrates superior F1 scores (F1=0.16) compared to GPT-3.5 and Claude 3 Opus, it does not outperform a RoBERTa-CRF baseline (F1=0.67). Additionally, we find that all three LLMs outperform a MultiGranularity Network (MGN) baseline in detecting instances of one out of six propaganda techniques (name-calling), with GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 also outperforming the MGN baseline in detecting instances of appeal to fear and flag-waving.
In our paper we explore the definition, and extrapolation of fallacies as they pertain to the automatic detection of manipulation on social media. In particular we explore how these logical fallacies might appear in the real world i.e internet forums. We discovered a prevalence of misinformation / misguided intention in discussion boards specifically centered around the Ukrainian Russian Conflict which serves to narrow the domain of our task. Although automatic fallacy detection has gained attention recently, most datasets use unregulated fallacy taxonomies or are limited to formal linguistic domains like political debates or news reports. Online discourse, however, often features non-standardized and diverse language not captured in these domains. We present Shady Linguistic Utterance Replication-Generation (SLURG) to address these limitations, exploring the feasibility of generating synthetic fallacious forum-style comments using large language models (LLMs), specifically DeepHermes-3-Mistral-24B. Our findings indicate that LLMs can replicate the syntactic patterns of real data} and that high-quality few-shot prompts enhance LLMs' ability to mimic the vocabulary diversity of online forums.
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%.
In the current era of social media and generative AI, an ability to automatically assess the credibility of online social media content is of tremendous importance. Credibility assessment is fundamentally based on aggregating credibility signals, which refer to small units of information, such as content factuality, bias, or a presence of persuasion techniques, into an overall credibility score. Credibility signals provide a more granular, more easily explainable and widely utilizable information in contrast to currently predominant fake news detection, which utilizes various (mostly latent) features. A growing body of research on automatic credibility assessment and detection of credibility signals can be characterized as highly fragmented and lacking mutual interconnections. This issue is even more prominent due to a lack of an up-to-date overview of research works on automatic credibility assessment. In this survey, we provide such systematic and comprehensive literature review of 175 research papers while focusing on textual credibility signals and Natural Language Processing (NLP), which undergoes a significant advancement due to Large Language Models (LLMs). While positioning the NLP research into the context of other multidisciplinary research works, we tackle with approaches for credibility assessment as well as with 9 categories of credibility signals (we provide a thorough analysis for 3 of them, namely: 1) factuality, subjectivity and bias, 2) persuasion techniques and logical fallacies, and 3) claims and veracity). Following the description of the existing methods, datasets and tools, we identify future challenges and opportunities, while paying a specific attention to recent rapid development of generative AI.
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.
Robotic planning and execution in open-world environments is a complex problem due to the vast state spaces and high variability of task embodiment. Recent advances in perception algorithms, combined with Large Language Models (LLMs) for planning, offer promising solutions to these challenges, as the common sense reasoning capabilities of LLMs provide a strong heuristic for efficiently searching the action space. However, prior work fails to address the possibility of hallucinations from LLMs, which results in failures to execute the planned actions largely due to logical fallacies at high- or low-levels. To contend with automation failure due to such hallucinations, we introduce ConceptAgent, a natural language-driven robotic platform designed for task execution in unstructured environments. With a focus on scalability and reliability of LLM-based planning in complex state and action spaces, we present innovations designed to limit these shortcomings, including 1) Predicate Grounding to prevent and recover from infeasible actions, and 2) an embodied version of LLM-guided Monte Carlo Tree Search with self reflection. In simulation experiments, ConceptAgent achieved a 19% task completion rate across three room layouts and 30 easy level embodied tasks outperforming other state-of-the-art LLM-driven reasoning baselines that scored 10.26% and 8.11% on the same benchmark. Additionally, ablation studies on moderate to hard embodied tasks revealed a 20% increase in task completion from the baseline agent to the fully enhanced ConceptAgent, highlighting the individual and combined contributions of Predicate Grounding and LLM-guided Tree Search to enable more robust automation in complex state and action spaces.
Detecting logical fallacies in texts can help users spot argument flaws, but automating this detection is not easy. Manually annotating fallacies in large-scale, real-world text data to create datasets for developing and validating detection models is costly. This paper introduces CoCoLoFa, the largest known logical fallacy dataset, containing 7,706 comments for 648 news articles, with each comment labeled for fallacy presence and type. We recruited 143 crowd workers to write comments embodying specific fallacy types (e.g., slippery slope) in response to news articles. Recognizing the complexity of this writing task, we built an LLM-powered assistant into the workers' interface to aid in drafting and refining their comments. Experts rated the writing quality and labeling validity of CoCoLoFa as high and reliable. BERT-based models fine-tuned using CoCoLoFa achieved the highest fallacy detection (F1=0.86) and classification (F1=0.87) performance on its test set, outperforming the state-of-the-art LLMs. Our work shows that combining crowdsourcing and LLMs enables us to more effectively construct datasets for complex linguistic phenomena that crowd workers find challenging to produce on their own.
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.
Prior research in computational argumentation has mainly focused on scoring the quality of arguments, with less attention on explicating logical errors. In this work, we introduce four sets of explainable templates for common informal logical fallacies designed to explicate a fallacy's implicit logic. Using our templates, we conduct an annotation study on top of 400 fallacious arguments taken from LOGIC dataset and achieve a high agreement score (Krippendorf's alpha of 0.54) and reasonable coverage (0.83). Finally, we conduct an experiment for detecting the structure of fallacies and discover that state-of-the-art language models struggle with detecting fallacy templates (0.47 accuracy). To facilitate research on fallacies, we make our dataset and guidelines publicly available.
Translating natural language into formal language such as First-Order Logic (FOL) is a foundational challenge in NLP with wide-ranging applications in automated reasoning, misinformation tracking, and knowledge validation. In this paper, we introduce Natural Language to First-Order Logic (NL2FOL), a framework to autoformalize natural language to FOL step by step using Large Language Models (LLMs). Our approach addresses key challenges in this translation process, including the integration of implicit background knowledge. By leveraging structured representations generated by NL2FOL, we use Satisfiability Modulo Theory (SMT) solvers to reason about the logical validity of natural language statements. We present logical fallacy detection as a case study to evaluate the efficacy of NL2FOL. Being neurosymbolic, our approach also provides interpretable insights into the reasoning process and demonstrates robustness without requiring model fine-tuning or labeled training data. Our framework achieves strong performance on multiple datasets. On the LOGIC dataset, NL2FOL achieves an F1-score of 78%, while generalizing effectively to the LOGICCLIMATE dataset with an F1-score of 80%.
The prevalence of unwarranted beliefs, spanning pseudoscience, logical fallacies, and conspiracy theories, presents substantial societal hurdles and the risk of disseminating misinformation. Utilizing established psychometric assessments, this study explores the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) vis-a-vis the average human in detecting prevalent logical pitfalls. We undertake a philosophical inquiry, juxtaposing the rationality of humans against that of LLMs. Furthermore, we propose methodologies for harnessing LLMs to counter misconceptions, drawing upon psychological models of persuasion such as cognitive dissonance theory and elaboration likelihood theory. Through this endeavor, we highlight the potential of LLMs as personalized misinformation debunking agents.
Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated good performance in many reasoning tasks, but they still struggle with some complicated reasoning tasks including logical reasoning. One non-negligible reason for LLMs' suboptimal performance on logical reasoning is their overlooking of understanding logical fallacies correctly. To evaluate LLMs' capability of logical fallacy understanding (LFU), we propose five concrete tasks from three cognitive dimensions of WHAT, WHY, and HOW in this paper. Towards these LFU tasks, we have successfully constructed a new dataset LFUD based on GPT-4 accompanied by a little human effort. Our extensive experiments justify that our LFUD can be used not only to evaluate LLMs' LFU capability, but also to fine-tune LLMs to obtain significantly enhanced performance on logical reasoning.
There is increasing interest in the adoption of LLMs in HCI research. However, LLMs may often be regarded as a panacea because of their powerful capabilities with an accompanying oversight on whether they are suitable for their intended tasks. We contend that LLMs should be adopted in a critical manner following rigorous evaluation. Accordingly, we present the evaluation of an LLM in identifying logical fallacies that will form part of a digital misinformation intervention. By comparing to a labeled dataset, we found that GPT-4 achieves an accuracy of 0.79, and for our intended use case that excludes invalid or unidentified instances, an accuracy of 0.90. This gives us the confidence to proceed with the application of the LLM while keeping in mind the areas where it still falls short. The paper describes our evaluation approach, results and reflections on the use of the LLM for our intended task.
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.
Given a conditional sentence "P=>Q" (if P then Q) and respective facts, four different types of inferences are observed in human reasoning. Affirming the antecedent (AA) (or modus ponens) reasons Q from P; affirming the consequent (AC) reasons P from Q; denying the antecedent (DA) reasons -Q from -P; and denying the consequent (DC) (or modus tollens) reasons -P from -Q. Among them, AA and DC are logically valid, while AC and DA are logically invalid and often called logical fallacies. Nevertheless, humans often perform AC or DA as pragmatic inference in daily life. In this paper, we realize AC, DA and DC inferences in answer set programming. Eight different types of completion are introduced and their semantics are given by answer sets. We investigate formal properties and characterize human reasoning tasks in cognitive psychology. Those completions are also applied to commonsense reasoning in AI.