Data-driven Machine Learning Cannot Reach Symbolic-level Logical Reasoning -- The Limit of the Scaling Law
Authors: Tiansi Dong, Mateja Jamnik, Pietro Liò
Organizations: The Alan Turing Institute, 96 Euston Road, London, NW1 2DB, UK. · Department of Computer Science and Technology, University of Cambridge, 15 JJ Thomson Ave., Cambridge, CB3 0FD, UK.
Sphere neural networks have achieved symbolic level syllogistic reasoning without training data, raising the question of where the limit of the scaling law for logical reasoning lies, i.e., whether data-driven machine learning systems can achieve the same level by increasing training data and training time. We show two methodological limitations that prevent supervised deep learning from reaching the symbolic-level syllogistic reasoning: (1) training data can not distinguish all 24 types of valid syllogistic reasoning; (2) end-to-end mapping from premises to conclusion introduces contradictory training targets between neural components for pattern recognition and logical reasoning. Beside theoretical analysis, we experimentally illustrate that Euler Net cannot achieve rigorous syllogistic reasoning. We further challenge the most recent ChatGPTs (GPT-5-nano and GPT-5) to determine the satisfiability of syllogistic statements in four surface forms (patterns): words, double words, simple symbols, and long random symbols, showing that surface forms affect the reasoning performance and that ChatGPT GPT-5 may reach 100% accuracy but still provide incorrect explanations. As empirical training processes are stopped after achieving 100% accuracy, we conclude that supervised machine learning systems will not attain the rigour of symbolic logical reasoning.
Language models (LMs) struggle with logical tasks like reasoning on syllogisms. It has been shown that Knowledge Representation (KR) plays a crucial role in expressing input information to help models solve tasks. This observation motivates our study of the impact of different formal KR notations on syllogistic reasoning by extending the FOLIO and P-FOLIO datasets. Our experiments on Small Language Models (SLMs) in Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) and Zero-Shot (ZS) settings show that the choice of input notation can yield performances competitive with natural language while enabling faster inference. We also propose a syllogistic categorization method (SEF) and use it to enrich ZS prompts with logical definitions, which boost reasoning in small models. We open-source our framework, Common Logic Grammar Construction (CLGC), as the first Python library for automatically generating syllogisms in KR notations and defining their SEF categories.
This paper describes our system submitted to SemEval-2026 Task 11: Disentangling Content and Formal Reasoning in Large Language Models. We present an efficient modular neuro-symbolic approach, combining a symbolic prover with small reasoning LLMs (4B parameters). The system consists of an LLM-based parser that translates natural language syllogisms to a first-order logic (FOL) representation, an automated theorem prover, and two optional modules: machine translation for multilingual inputs and a symbolic retrieval component for the identification of relevant premises. The system achieves competitive accuracy and relatively low content effect on most subtasks. Our ablations show that this approach outperforms LLM-based zero-shot baselines in this parameter size range, but also reveal limited multilingual capabilities of small LLMs. Finally, we include a discussion of the task's main ranking metric and analyze its limitations.
Diagrams are widely used to support logical reasoning, and prior studies suggest that representations such as Euler diagrams can improve human reasoning performance. Recent work has also explored their effects on large language models (LLMs). In this paper, we compare four representational conditions for syllogistic reasoning: natural language, logical notation, linear diagrams, and Euler diagrams. Using 285 problems from Ando et al. (2024), we evaluate two contemporary LLMs, Claude 3.5~Sonnet and GPT-4o-mini. Our results show that diagrammatic representations do not consistently improve performance. Although the models perform well on entailment and contradiction problems, they struggle with neutral problems and often make systematic conversion errors. Overall, the results suggest that the tested models gain limited benefit from diagrams in logical reasoning tasks.