LGMT: A Tool for Testing the Logical Reasoning Reliability of LLMs

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.

Large language models (LLMs) frequently contradict themselves when the surface form of a logically equivalent question changes. We present a benchmark of 350 question families (1,750 total questions) for Controlled Reformulation Testing (CRTBench) to evaluate logical invariance. In this benchmark, we investigate LLMs' ability to maintain consistent answers across controlled reformulations, which include contrapositive rewriting, double negation, negation flipping, and passive voice. We evaluate several frontier LLMs and observe an accuracy-consistency gap where GPT-5.4-mini achieves $98.9\%$ base accuracy but only $60.3\%$ family-level consistency, while reasoning-optimized o4-mini achieves $96.9\%$ consistency. From our experiments, we observe that failures cluster around logically nontrivial transformations such as contrapositive rewriting ($72.4\%$ for GPT-5.4-mini) and double negation ($84.6\%$), while surface-level rephrasing remains robust ($94-100\%$). Increasing reasoning effort improves GPT-5.4-mini to $85.4\%$ consistency, but leaves GPT-5.4 unchanged overall because gains on nested negation are offset by failures on quantifier families. These results show that accuracy alone is not enough for evaluating logical reasoning in LLMs.

Large language models (LLMs) excel at natural language tasks but remain brittle in domains requiring precise logical and symbolic reasoning. Chaotic dynamical systems provide an especially demanding test because chaos is deterministic yet often misinterpreted as randomness or complexity. We introduce ChaosBench-Logic, a benchmark that evaluates LLM reasoning across 30 diverse dynamical systems using a unified first-order logic (FOL) ontology. Each system is annotated with truth assignments for 11 semantic predicates, and 621 questions are generated across seven reasoning categories, including multi-hop implications, cross-system analogies, counterfactual reasoning, bias probes, and multi-turn dialogues. We define metrics for logical accuracy, implication consistency, dialogue coherence, and contradiction, and we release an open-source evaluation pipeline. Initial experiments show that frontier LLMs such as GPT-4, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Gemini 2.5 Flash, and the open-source LLaMA-3 70B achieve 91-94% per-item accuracy, yet still score 0% on compositional items and exhibit fragile global coherence. Dialogue-level accuracy ranges from 53.1% (GPT-4 CoT) to 75.5% (LLaMA-3 zero-shot). ChaosBench-Logic provides a rigorous testbed for diagnosing such failures and a foundation for developing neuro-symbolic approaches that improve scientific reasoning in LLMs.