🤖 AI Summary
Large language models exhibit poor performance on compound judgments composed of logical operators such as AND, OR, and NEITHER/NOR, even when they accurately handle atomic judgments. This work proposes the first framework that reasons about such compounds without requiring explicit composite inputs, relying solely on atomic evidence and logical constraints. The approach decomposes compound questions into atomic subproblems, generates and scores contrastive hypotheses, and then integrates these scores via integer linear programming subject to logical operator constraints for calibrated fusion. This method substantially improves model comprehension of complex logical structures—particularly challenging cases involving NEITHER/NOR—achieving Macro-F1 gains from 48.3 to 77.0 on LOGICAL-COMMONSENSEQA and from 47.0 to 75.6 on the newly introduced LOGICAL-SATA benchmark.
📝 Abstract
Large language models often fail when answer options require combining atomic judgments under explicit logical operators, even when they judge the individual atoms correctly. We study compound options connected by AND, OR, and NEITHER/NOR, introducing a framework that decomposes each option into atomic answers and scores contrastive hypotheses about each one, so the model never sees a compound option. An operator-constrained integer linear program then composes the calibrated scores into a single prediction. We evaluate on LOGICAL-COMMONSENSEQA and introduce LOGICAL-SATA, a reading-comprehension benchmark derived from SATA-Bench. Our framework improves Macro-F1 from 48.3 to 77.0 on the human-validated LOGICAL-COMMONSENSEQA split and from 47.0 to 75.6 on LOGICAL-SATA, with the largest gains on NEITHER/NOR.