Larry Wos - Visions of automated reasoning

This paper celebrates the scientific discoveries and the service to the automated reasoning community of Lawrence (Larry) T. Wos, who passed away in August 2020. The narrative covers Larry's most long-lasting ideas about inference rules and search strategies for theorem proving, his work on applications of theorem proving, and a collection of personal memories and anecdotes that let readers appreciate Larry's personality and enthusiasm for automated reasoning

Automated Reasoning

This volume, LNAI 13385, constitutes the refereed proceedings of the 11th International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning, IJCAR 2022, held in Haifa, Israel, in August 2022. The 32 full research papers and 9 short papers presented together with two invited talks were carefully reviewed and selected from 85 submissions. The papers focus on the following topics: Satisfiability, SMT Solving,Arithmetic; Calculi and Orderings; Knowledge Representation and Jutsification; Choices, Invariance, Substitutions and Formalization; Modal Logics; Proofs System and Proofs Search; Evolution, Termination and Decision Prolems. This is an open access book

Measuring reasoning capabilities of ChatGPT

I shall quantify the logical faults generated by ChatGPT when applied to reasoning tasks. For experiments, I use the 144 puzzles from the library \url{https://users.utcluj.ro/~agroza/puzzles/maloga}~\cite{groza:fol}. The library contains puzzles of various types, including arithmetic puzzles, logical equations, Sudoku-like puzzles, zebra-like puzzles, truth-telling puzzles, grid puzzles, strange numbers, or self-reference puzzles. The correct solutions for these puzzles were checked using the theorem prover Prover9~\cite{mccune2005release} and the finite models finder Mace4~\cite{mccune2003mace4} based on human-modelling in Equational First Order Logic. A first output of this study is the benchmark of 100 logical puzzles. For this dataset ChatGPT provided both correct answer and justification for 7\% only. %, while BARD for 5\%. Since the dataset seems challenging, the researchers are invited to test the dataset on more advanced or tuned models than ChatGPT3.5 with more crafted prompts. A second output is the classification of reasoning faults conveyed by ChatGPT. This classification forms a basis for a taxonomy of reasoning faults generated by large language models. I have identified 67 such logical faults, among which: inconsistencies, implication does not hold, unsupported claim, lack of commonsense, wrong justification. The 100 solutions generated by ChatGPT contain 698 logical faults. That is on average, 7 fallacies for each reasoning task. A third ouput is the annotated answers of the ChatGPT with the corresponding logical faults. Each wrong statement within the ChatGPT answer was manually annotated, aiming to quantify the amount of faulty text generated by the language model. On average, 26.03\% from the generated text was a logical fault