configs:
- config_name: experiment1
data_files:
- split: test
path:
- data/eval/experiment1.jsonl
default: true
- config_name: experiment2
data_files:
- split: test
path:
- data/eval/experiment2.jsonl
- config_name: experiment3
data_files:
- split: test
path:
- data/eval/experiment3.jsonl
- config_name: experiment4
data_files:
- split: test
path:
- data/eval/experiment4.jsonl
license: cc-by-4.0
extra_gated_prompt: You agree to not upload this data publicly without the author's consent.
extra_gated_fields:
Company: text
Country: country
I want to use this dataset for:
type: select
options:
- Research
- Education
- Product
- label: Other
value: other
task_categories:
- question-answering
language:
- en
tags:
- Logical Reasoning
- Propositional Logic
- Deductive Reasoning
size_categories:
- n<1K
Strategies in Sentential Reasoning
This dataset repository synthesizes the problems of propositional logic introduced in Strategies in Sentential Reasoning by Van der Henst et al. (2002).
The repository contains data for four different experiments, each designed to analyze the different strategies individuals employ in propositional logic. The data for each experiment is given as a distinct subset of the data repository. For additional details about the data, we refer to the original study by Van der Henst et al. (2002).
Comparing Inferential Strategies of Humans and Large Language Models in Deductive Reasoning
In our recent paper we replicate the first experiment of Van der Henst et al. (2002) to examine inferential strategies employed by large language models (LLMs). Our findings indicate that LLMs display reasoning patterns akin to those observed in humans.
Cite
@misc{mondorf2024comparing,
title={Comparing Inferential Strategies of Humans and Large Language Models in Deductive Reasoning},
author={Philipp Mondorf and Barbara Plank},
year={2024},
eprint={2402.14856},
archivePrefix={arXiv},
primaryClass={cs.CL}
}
References
[1] Jean-Baptiste Van der Henst, Yingrui Yang, and P.n. Johnson-Laird. 2002. Strategies in sentential reasoning. Cognitive Science, 26(4):425–468.