TSR Desk · science · 9 September 2026, 07:00 UTC
LogicSkills: A Structured Benchmark for Formal Reasoning in Large Language Models
- What
- LogicSkills: A Structured Benchmark for Formal Reasoning in Large Language Models
- Who
- arxiv.org
- When
- 9 September 2026, 04:00 UTC
- Category
- Science
- Primary source
- https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.06533
- What is not known
- This brief does not claim independent replication. Claims that appear only on X and not in the primary source stay unknown.
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. It comes from a paper posted to arXiv on 9 September 2026. Large language models perform well on many logical reasoning benchmarks, but it remains unclear which core logical skills they truly master. 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.
Why it counts
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.
Sources
Primary source: primary source
What is not known
This brief does not claim independent replication. Claims that appear only on X and not in the primary source stay unknown.
No clip. The article still stands.