Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study evaluates the abductive reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) using a novel framework called Elenchos, which frames the task as a structural inverse problem. By comparing LLM performance on a reference formal system and its mutated counterpart, the authors reveal a dissociation between the models' ability to detect alterations and their capacity to attribute the underlying causes of these changes. The findings indicate that while LLMs can recognize modifications, they struggle significantly with complex, interacting mutations, and show only modest improvements with increased reasoning time.
LLMs can identify when a system has been altered, but they often fail to pinpoint the specific mutations responsible for the changes.
Large language models (LLMs) excel at pattern recognition and text generation, but their capacity for abductive inference - inferring latent hypotheses that explain observed behavior - remains poorly understood. Here, we introduce Elenchos (named after the Socratic method of cross-examination), a generative evaluation framework that measures abductive reasoning as a structural inverse problem. Given a reference formal system, such as the lambda-calculus, and a potentially mutated counterpart, agents must determine whether a mutation has occurred and infer the rule modifications responsible for the resulting behavioral differences. Evaluating frontier and mid-tier LLMs reveals a consistent detection-attribution dissociation: models often recognize that a system has been altered but struggle to identify the latent mutations causing the observed discrepancies. Performance degrades substantially under interacting mutations, where models frequently recover only a subset of the underlying mutations. Preliminary evidence also suggests diminishing returns from increased inference-time reasoning, with only modest improvements under larger reasoning budgets, though this finding requires further validation.
