Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 cited by

ReClor: A Reading Comprehension Dataset Requiring Logical Reasoning

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2002.04326 v3 pith:2IVF5LKF submitted 2020-02-11 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG

ReClor: A Reading Comprehension Dataset Requiring Logical Reasoning

classification cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG
keywords modelsreasoninglogicalabilitycomprehensiondatasetdatasetsreading
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Recent powerful pre-trained language models have achieved remarkable performance on most of the popular datasets for reading comprehension. It is time to introduce more challenging datasets to push the development of this field towards more comprehensive reasoning of text. In this paper, we introduce a new Reading Comprehension dataset requiring logical reasoning (ReClor) extracted from standardized graduate admission examinations. As earlier studies suggest, human-annotated datasets usually contain biases, which are often exploited by models to achieve high accuracy without truly understanding the text. In order to comprehensively evaluate the logical reasoning ability of models on ReClor, we propose to identify biased data points and separate them into EASY set while the rest as HARD set. Empirical results show that state-of-the-art models have an outstanding ability to capture biases contained in the dataset with high accuracy on EASY set. However, they struggle on HARD set with poor performance near that of random guess, indicating more research is needed to essentially enhance the logical reasoning ability of current models.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. LGMT: Logic-Grounded Metamorphic Testing for Evaluating the Reasoning Reliability of LLMs

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    LGMT applies metamorphic testing derived from first-order logic equivalences to detect reasoning inconsistencies in LLMs that static benchmarks miss.

  2. LGMT: Logic-Grounded Metamorphic Testing for Evaluating the Reasoning Reliability of LLMs

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    LGMT is a logic-grounded metamorphic testing framework that detects hidden reasoning defects in LLMs by checking consistency on semantically invariant inputs derived from FOL equivalences.

  3. The Persuasion Paradox: When LLM Explanations Fail to Improve Human-AI Team Performance

    cs.HC 2026-01 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    LLM explanations create a persuasion paradox by increasing confidence without accuracy gains in visual tasks while aiding logical tasks, with uncertainty displays and selective automation outperforming explanations in...

  4. Measuring AI Reasoning: A Guide for Researchers

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Reasoning in language models should be measured by the faithfulness and validity of their multi-step search processes and intermediate traces, not final-answer accuracy.

  5. The nextAI Solution to the NeurIPS 2023 LLM Efficiency Challenge

    cs.LG 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 2.0

    A competition entry achieved efficient fine-tuning of LLaMa2 70B on one GPU in 24 hours with competitive QA benchmark performance.