A Comparative Study of Neurosymbolic AI Approaches to Interpretable Logical Reasoning
Michael K. Chen

TL;DR
This paper compares neurosymbolic AI approaches for logical reasoning, finding that hybrid models combining neural networks with symbolic solvers are more promising for general reasoning due to better interpretability and retention of LLM capabilities.
Contribution
It introduces a comparative analysis of integrative and hybrid neurosymbolic approaches, highlighting the advantages of hybrid models for general logical reasoning.
Findings
Hybrid approach offers more interpretable reasoning chains.
Hybrid models retain LLM capabilities and advantages.
Hybrid approach is more promising for domain-agnostic reasoning.
Abstract
General logical reasoning, defined as the ability to reason deductively on domain-agnostic tasks, continues to be a challenge for large language models (LLMs). Current LLMs fail to reason deterministically and are not interpretable. As such, there has been a recent surge in interest in neurosymbolic AI, which attempts to incorporate logic into neural networks. We first identify two main neurosymbolic approaches to improving logical reasoning: (i) the integrative approach comprising models where symbolic reasoning is contained within the neural network, and (ii) the hybrid approach comprising models where a symbolic solver, separate from the neural network, performs symbolic reasoning. Both contain AI systems with promising results on domain-specific logical reasoning benchmarks. However, their performance on domain-agnostic benchmarks is understudied. To the best of our knowledge, there…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
