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.
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 argument sufficiency assessment task aims to determine if the premises of a given argument support its conclusion. To tackle this task, existing works often train a classifier on data annotated by humans. However, annotating data is laborious, and annotations are often inconsistent due to subjective criteria. Motivated by the definition of probability of sufficiency (PS) in the causal literature, we proposeCASA, a zero-shot causality-driven argument sufficiency assessment framework. PS measures how likely introducing the premise event would lead to the conclusion when both the premise and conclusion events are absent. To estimate this probability, we propose to use large language models (LLMs) to generate contexts that are inconsistent with the premise and conclusion and revise them by injecting the premise event. Experiments on two logical fallacy detection datasets demonstrate that CASA accurately identifies insufficient arguments. We further deploy CASA in a writing assistance application, and find that suggestions generated by CASA enhance the sufficiency of student-written arguments. Code and data are available at https://github.com/xxxiaol/CASA.
Large language models (LLMs) have made impressive progress in natural language processing. These models rely on proper human instructions (or prompts) to generate suitable responses. However, the potential of LLMs are not fully harnessed by commonly-used prompting methods: many human-in-the-loop algorithms employ ad-hoc procedures for prompt selection; while auto prompt generation approaches are essentially searching all possible prompts randomly and inefficiently. We propose Evoke, an automatic prompt refinement framework. In Evoke, there are two instances of a same LLM: one as a reviewer (LLM-Reviewer), it scores the current prompt; the other as an author (LLM-Author), it edits the prompt by considering the edit history and the reviewer's feedback. Such an author-reviewer feedback loop ensures that the prompt is refined in each iteration. We further aggregate a data selection approach to Evoke, where only the hard samples are exposed to the LLM. The hard samples are more important because the LLM can develop deeper understanding of the tasks out of them, while the model may already know how to solve the easier cases. Experimental results show that Evoke significantly outperforms existing methods. For instance, in the challenging task of logical fallacy detection, Evoke scores above 80, while all other baseline methods struggle to reach 20.
We investigate the optimal model size and number of tokens for training a transformer language model under a given compute budget. We find that current large language models are significantly undertrained, a consequence of the recent focus on scaling language models whilst keeping the amount of training data constant. By training over \nummodels language models ranging from 70 million to over 16 billion parameters on 5 to 500 billion tokens, we find that for compute-optimal training, the model size and the number of training tokens should be scaled equally: for every doubling of model size the number of training tokens should also be doubled. We test this hypothesis by training a predicted compute-optimal model, \chinchilla, that uses the same compute budget as \gopher but with 70B parameters and 4$\times$ more more data. \chinchilla uniformly and significantly outperforms \Gopher (280B), GPT-3 (175B), Jurassic-1 (178B), and Megatron-Turing NLG (530B) on a large range of downstream evaluation tasks. This also means that \chinchilla uses substantially less compute for fine-tuning and inference, greatly facilitating downstream usage. As a highlight, \chinchilla reaches a state-of-the-art average accuracy of 67.5\% on the MMLU benchmark, greater than a 7\% improvement over \gopher.
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
Language modelling provides a step towards intelligent communication systems by harnessing large repositories of written human knowledge to better predict and understand the world. In this paper, we present an analysis of Transformer-based language model performance across a wide range of model scales -- from models with tens of millions of parameters up to a 280 billion parameter model called Gopher. These models are evaluated on 152 diverse tasks, achieving state-of-the-art performance across the majority. Gains from scale are largest in areas such as reading comprehension, fact-checking, and the identification of toxic language, but logical and mathematical reasoning see less benefit. We provide a holistic analysis of the training dataset and model's behaviour, covering the intersection of model scale with bias and toxicity. Finally we discuss the application of language models to AI safety and the mitigation of downstream harms.