Evaluating the Logical Reasoning Abilities of Large Reasoning Models

Fuente: arXiv
Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Liu, Hanmeng, Ding, Yiran, Fu, Zhizhang, Zhang, Chaoli, Liu, Xiaozhang, Zhang, Yue
Format: Preprint
Published: 2025
Subjects:
Online Access:
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1866910950661029888
author Liu, Hanmeng
Ding, Yiran
Fu, Zhizhang
Zhang, Chaoli
Liu, Xiaozhang
Zhang, Yue
author_facet Liu, Hanmeng
Ding, Yiran
Fu, Zhizhang
Zhang, Chaoli
Liu, Xiaozhang
Zhang, Yue
contents Large reasoning models, often post-trained on long chain-of-thought (long CoT) data with reinforcement learning, achieve state-of-the-art performance on mathematical, coding, and domain-specific reasoning benchmarks. However, their logical reasoning capabilities - fundamental to human cognition and independent of domain knowledge - remain understudied. To address this gap, we introduce LogiEval, a holistic benchmark for evaluating logical reasoning in large reasoning models. LogiEval spans diverse reasoning types (deductive, inductive, analogical, and abductive) and task formats (e.g., logical sequence, argument analysis), sourced from high-quality human examinations (e.g., LSAT, GMAT). Our experiments demonstrate that modern reasoning models excel at 4-choice argument analysis problems and analogical reasoning, surpassing human performance, yet exhibit uneven capabilities across reasoning types and formats, highlighting limitations in their generalization. Our analysis reveals that human performance does not mirror model failure distributions. To foster further research, we curate LogiEval-Hard, a challenging subset identified through a novel screening paradigm where small-model failures (Qwen3-30B-A3B) reliably predict difficulties for larger models. Modern models show striking, consistent failures on LogiEval-Hard. This demonstrates that fundamental reasoning bottlenecks persist across model scales, and establishes LogiEval-Hard as both a diagnostic tool and a rigorous testbed for advancing logical reasoning in LLMs.
format Preprint
id arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2505_11854
institution arXiv
publishDate 2025
record_format arxiv
spellingShingle Evaluating the Logical Reasoning Abilities of Large Reasoning Models
Liu, Hanmeng
Ding, Yiran
Fu, Zhizhang
Zhang, Chaoli
Liu, Xiaozhang
Zhang, Yue
Artificial Intelligence
Large reasoning models, often post-trained on long chain-of-thought (long CoT) data with reinforcement learning, achieve state-of-the-art performance on mathematical, coding, and domain-specific reasoning benchmarks. However, their logical reasoning capabilities - fundamental to human cognition and independent of domain knowledge - remain understudied. To address this gap, we introduce LogiEval, a holistic benchmark for evaluating logical reasoning in large reasoning models. LogiEval spans diverse reasoning types (deductive, inductive, analogical, and abductive) and task formats (e.g., logical sequence, argument analysis), sourced from high-quality human examinations (e.g., LSAT, GMAT). Our experiments demonstrate that modern reasoning models excel at 4-choice argument analysis problems and analogical reasoning, surpassing human performance, yet exhibit uneven capabilities across reasoning types and formats, highlighting limitations in their generalization. Our analysis reveals that human performance does not mirror model failure distributions. To foster further research, we curate LogiEval-Hard, a challenging subset identified through a novel screening paradigm where small-model failures (Qwen3-30B-A3B) reliably predict difficulties for larger models. Modern models show striking, consistent failures on LogiEval-Hard. This demonstrates that fundamental reasoning bottlenecks persist across model scales, and establishes LogiEval-Hard as both a diagnostic tool and a rigorous testbed for advancing logical reasoning in LLMs.
title Evaluating the Logical Reasoning Abilities of Large Reasoning Models
topic Artificial Intelligence
url https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.11854