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

Case Study: Using AI-Assisted Code Generation In Mobile Teams

The aim of this study is to evaluate the performance of AI-assisted programming in actual mobile development teams that are focused on native mobile languages like Kotlin and Swift. The extensive case study involves 16 participants and 2 technical reviewers, from a software development department designed to understand the impact of using LLMs trained for code generation in specific phases of the team, more specifically, technical onboarding and technical stack switch. The study uses technical problems dedicated to each phase and requests solutions from the participants with and without using AI-Code generators. It measures time, correctness, and technical integration using ReviewerScore, a metric specific to the paper and extracted from actual industry standards, the code reviewers of merge requests. The output is converted and analyzed together with feedback from the participants in an attempt to determine if using AI-assisted programming tools will have an impact on getting developers onboard in a project or helping them with a smooth transition between the two native development environments of mobile development, Android and iOS. The study was performed between May and June 2023 with members of the mobile department of a software development company based in Cluj-Napoca, with Romanian ownership and management.Comment: 8 pages, 10 figures, 1 table, ICCP conferenc

Assuring safety in an air traffic control system with defeasible logic programming

Assuring safety in complex technical systems is a crucial issue in several critical applications like air traffic control or medical devices. We present a preliminary framework based on argumentation for assisting flight controllers to reach a decision related to safety constraints in an ever changing environment in which sensor data is gathered at real time.Sociedad Argentina de Informática e Investigación Operativa (SADIO