Current evaluations of Large Language Models (LLMs) on logical fallacy detection focus on predicted labels, but do not establish whether those labels are supported by the reasoning the models provide. We propose ForEx (Formal Verification for Explainable Reasoning), a framework that translates LLM-generated explanations into Lean4 and verifies whether the translated rationale is derivable under encoded premises, not the logical validity of the original natural language argument. To distinguish prediction outcomes from the formal status of the supporting reasoning, we introduce the LLM Argument Verification Matrix, which separates label consistency from formal verification status. Experiments on LOGIC-Climate show that over 90% of LLM outputs can be translated into formal reasoning chains that pass verification, while agreement with human annotations remains around 20%. These results expose a systematic gap between formal derivability and label agreement, a distinction invisible to prediction-based metrics. ForEx moves LLM evaluation beyond label correctness toward machine-checkable analysis of formalized reasoning chains.
Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit strong semantic capabilities, yet their resilience to manipulative linguistic patterns such as logical fallacies remains underexplored. Prior work has primarily examined whether LLMs can identify or classify fallacies, leaving their robustness against fallacious persuasion insufficiently studied. To address this gap, we introduce LoFa (Logical Fallacy), a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating LLM robustness against fallacies. LoFa is constructed through a multi-agent pipeline that pairs factual questions with fallacious arguments, and is accompanied by a multi-round debate framework for assessing model resilience under sustained adversarial persuasion. To disentangle fallacy robustness from a model's inherent knowledge limitations, we further propose Logical Fallacy Resistance at k (LFR@k), a metric that quantifies resistance to fallacious attacks. Experiments show that LLMs exhibit varying levels of robustness across different fallacy types, revealing distinct vulnerability profiles among models.
In today's fast-paced information era, logical fallacies, defined as defective patterns of reasoning, inevitably contribute to the growth of information disorder. However, often fallacies appear in nuanced forms that complicate automated classification. In this study, we investigate whether merging abstract logical structures with context-level linguistic cues proves beneficial for fallacy classification, developing a framework that inductively extracts such patterns from fallacious examples and their explanations using Large Language Models (LLMs). We evaluate the impact of these patterns across different LLMs and experimental zero- and one-shot configurations, showing statistically significant improvements over zero-shot baselines and outperforming competing approaches. Cross-dataset experiments validate generalization, establishing data-driven pattern extraction as an effective method for generating logical representations.
Eleni Papadopulos, Firoj Alam, Giovanni Da San Martino
Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve strong performance on logical reasoning benchmarks, yet their reliability remains uncertain. Existing evaluations rely on static benchmarks, which fail to assess robustness under logically equivalent transformations and often overestimate reasoning capability. We propose LGMT (Logic-Grounded Metamorphic Testing), an oracle-free framework that leverages first-order logic (FOL) to evaluate LLM reasoning. By deriving metamorphic relations from formal logical equivalences, LGMT constructs semantically invariant test cases and detects reasoning defects through cross-case consistency checking. Experiments on six state-of-the-art LLMs show that LGMT exposes substantial hidden defects missed by traditional reference-based evaluations. We further find that models are particularly sensitive to symbol-level and conclusion-level variations, and that advanced prompting such as Few-shot CoT only partially mitigates these issues. These results suggest that LLM evaluation should move beyond isolated correctness toward robustness under logical invariance. LGMT provides a principled and scalable approach for diagnosing reasoning failures.