LogicSkills: A Structured Benchmark for Formal Reasoning in Large Language Models

Brian Rabern, Philipp Mondorf, Barbara Plank · Feb 6, 2026 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Large language models perform well on many logical reasoning benchmarks, but it remains unclear which core logical skills they truly master. To address this, we introduce LogicSkills, a benchmark that isolates three fundamental logical skills: (i) $\textit{formal symbolization}\unicode{x2014}{}$translating premises into first-order logic; (ii) $\textit{countermodel construction}\unicode{x2014}$showing that an argument is logically invalid by constructing a finite countermodel; and (iii) $\textit{validity assessment}\unicode{x2014}$determining whether a conclusion follows from a set of premises. Items are drawn from the two-variable fragment of first-order logic without identity and are presented in both English and a Carrollian nonce-word language. All instances are solver-verified with Z3 for correctness and non-triviality. Across conventional instruction-tuned LLMs, performance is high on $\textit{validity assessment}$ but substantially lower on $\textit{formal symbolization}$ and $\textit{countermodel construction}$, highlighting that high task-level accuracy can mask weaknesses in core logical skills. In contrast, recent reasoning-tuned models perform strongly across all three tasks, suggesting a more systematic logical skill profile.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 35%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Large language models perform well on many logical reasoning benchmarks, but it remains unclear which core logical skills they truly master."

Evaluation Modes

partial

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"Large language models perform well on many logical reasoning benchmarks, but it remains unclear which core logical skills they truly master."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Large language models perform well on many logical reasoning benchmarks, but it remains unclear which core logical skills they truly master."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Large language models perform well on many logical reasoning benchmarks, but it remains unclear which core logical skills they truly master."

Reported Metrics

partial

Accuracy

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"Across conventional instruction-tuned LLMs, performance is high on $\textit{validity assessment}$ but substantially lower on $\textit{formal symbolization}$ and $\textit{countermodel construction}$, highlighting that high task-level accuracy can mask weaknesses in core logical skills."

Human Feedback Details

Uses human feedback: No
Feedback types: None
Rater population: Not reported
Expertise required: General

Evaluation Details

Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
Agentic eval: None
Quality controls: Not reported
Evidence quality: Low
Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

accuracy

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Large language models perform well on many logical reasoning benchmarks, but it remains unclear which core logical skills they truly master.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

Large language models perform well on many logical reasoning benchmarks, but it remains unclear which core logical skills they truly master.
To address this, we introduce LogicSkills, a benchmark that isolates three fundamental logical skills: (i) $\textit{formal symbolization}\unicode{x2014}{}$translating premises into first-order logic; (ii) $\textit{countermodel construction}\unicode{x2014}$showing that an argument is logically invalid by constructing a finite countermodel; and (iii) $\textit{validity assessment}\unicode{x2014}$determining whether a conclusion follows from a set of premises.
Items are drawn from the two-variable fragment of first-order logic without identity and are presented in both English and a Carrollian nonce-word language.

Researcher Actions

Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
Validate inferred eval signals (Automatic metrics) against the full paper.
Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Accuracy

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

Large language models perform well on many logical reasoning benchmarks, but it remains unclear which core logical skills they truly master.
To address this, we introduce LogicSkills, a benchmark that isolates three fundamental logical skills: (i) formal symbolizationx2014{}translating premises into first-order logic; (ii) countermodel constructionx2014showing that an argument…
Across conventional instruction-tuned LLMs, performance is high on validity assessment but substantially lower on formal symbolization and countermodel construction, highlighting that high task-level accuracy can mask weaknesses in core…

Why It Matters For Eval

Large language models perform well on many logical reasoning benchmarks, but it remains unclear which core logical skills they truly master.
To address this, we introduce LogicSkills, a benchmark that isolates three fundamental logical skills: (i) formal symbolizationx2014{}translating premises into first-order logic; (ii) countermodel constructionx2014showing that an argument…

Researcher Checklist

Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

No explicit human feedback protocol detected.
Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

Detected: Automatic Metrics
Gap: Quality control reporting appears

No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.
Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.
Pass: Metric reporting is present

Detected: accuracy

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

No related papers found for this item yet.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.

Self-Service

Post a Job

Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.

Create Account & Post a Job

Managed Service

For Large Projects

Done-for-You

We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.

Learn About Managed Service

For Freelancers

Join as an AI Trainer

Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.

Join Now