Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper critiques the use of logical soundness as the sole criterion for fact-checking in neurosymbolic systems that incorporate LLMs. It argues that logically sound conclusions can still be misleading due to discrepancies between formal logic and human inference. The authors propose leveraging LLMs' human-like reasoning to identify potentially misleading conclusions, rather than relying solely on logical validity.
Logically sound reasoning isn't enough to prevent LLMs from generating misleading claims in neurosymbolic fact-checking systems, because humans often draw unsupported inferences from valid conclusions.
As large language models (LLMs) are increasing integrated into fact-checking pipelines, formal logic is often proposed as a rigorous means by which to mitigate bias, errors and hallucinations in these models' outputs. For example, some neurosymbolic systems verify claims by using LLMs to translate natural language into logical formulae and then checking whether the proposed claims are logically sound, i.e. whether they can be validly derived from premises that are verified to be true. We argue that such approaches structurally fail to detect misleading claims due to systematic divergences between conclusions that are logically sound and inferences that humans typically make and accept. Drawing on studies in cognitive science and pragmatics, we present a typology of cases in which logically sound conclusions systematically elicit human inferences that are unsupported by the underlying premises. Consequently, we advocate for a complementary approach: leveraging the human-like reasoning tendencies of LLMs as a feature rather than a bug, and using these models to validate the outputs of formal components in neurosymbolic systems against potentially misleading conclusions.
