Logic Agent: Enhancing Validity with Logic Rule Invocation
Hanmeng Liu, Zhiyang Teng, Chaoli Zhang, Yue Zhang

TL;DR
This paper introduces the Logic Agent framework that enhances reasoning validity in large language models by dynamically invoking logic rules, leading to more coherent, interpretable, and precise reasoning across tasks.
Contribution
The paper presents a novel logic agent approach that transforms LLMs into logic-based reasoning systems with dynamic rule invocation, improving validity and interpretability.
Findings
Significant improvement in reasoning accuracy across tasks
Enhanced interpretability of reasoning processes
Effective scaling across different model sizes
Abstract
Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting has emerged as a pivotal technique for augmenting the inferential capabilities of language models during reasoning tasks. Despite its advancements, CoT often grapples with challenges in validating reasoning validity and ensuring informativeness. Addressing these limitations, this paper introduces the Logic Agent (LA), an agent-based framework aimed at enhancing the validity of reasoning processes in Large Language Models (LLMs) through strategic logic rule invocation. Unlike conventional approaches, LA transforms LLMs into logic agents that dynamically apply propositional logic rules, initiating the reasoning process by converting natural language inputs into structured logic forms. The logic agent leverages a comprehensive set of predefined functions to systematically navigate the reasoning process. This methodology not only promotes the structured and…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2025 Conference Withdrawn Submission
The overarching idea is a good one, to find a general way to encode context and query as propositions and to use common rules to help reason about these and avoid the LLMs making logic errors in their responses. The realisation of this into a workable scheme is pretty good too. This is evidenced by the general applicability of the approach and the fact that there are consistent improvements over other methods. There is a broad set of datasets and models being tested with a meaningful baseline an
The paper could be a little clearer in some parts. There is a little vagueness about how the method is applied. There are also some details that could be explained in a bit more detail. For instance, the authors state that the context is turned into propositional logic but that the forall and exists quantifiers are used (which suggests a first order-like encoding). It also wasn't clear how the logic generating step was developed to encode the context and what choices had been explored in achievi
Verification of logical chain validity and use of symbolic reasoning model is compelling for the task requiring reasoning. Idea of making LLM as a agent for decision making makes sense as LLM are now widely used for tool selection and function calling. Presentation wise, I really liked the introduction part of the paper which makes compelling argument for the motivation of the work. 1. Presents a unique approach to improving logical reasoning in LLMs by transforming them into rule-guided agents.
I really liked the introduction and related work section of the paper, which made very compelling premise for the logic agents. However section explaining the logic agents were not clear, apart from the Fig.2, section explaining them were not clear to me. Author(s) should put an effort so that readers who are not very deep and expert into this topic can benefit from this work. This requires through revision of the section 3 of the paper. Some pointers, author say in 3.3 "we prompt LLM to discer
Improving ability for reasoning for LLMs is a very important field of research.
The paper promises a lot in introduction and in the introduction; however it unfortunately runs short in implementing them. Main weaknesses are as follows: - It is not clear what is the "framework", it would really help to have an illustrative figure. Figure 1 and Figure 2 are more like a snapshot and the examples there are not really helpful (for instance Option A when we don't know other options, also many rules are based on absolute contrapositive, so its not clear how they are useful.) -
The framework introduces a systematic way to incorporate formal logic rules into LLM reasoning through well-defined functions (e.g., contrapositive law, transitive law, De Morgan's law), which provides a structured approach to logical deduction to improve the reasoning in CoT.
1: My main concern is that the analysis of the experiment is not inclusive; there is no clear comparison showing how LA improves reasoning other than vanilla CoT. Also missing ablation studies on individual components (e.g., impact of different logic rules, effectiveness of rule selection), and there is no detailed analysis of computational overhead or latency introduced by the framework and lack of error analysis showing standard failure modes 2: Insufficient details about prompt design choice
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsMulti-Agent Systems and Negotiation
MethodsSparse Evolutionary Training
