在极简形式主义下通过证明对LLM推理能力的压力测试
Stress-Testing the Reasoning Competence of LLMs With Proofs Under Minimal Formalism
本研究推出了名为ProofGrid的基准测试套件,旨在通过机器可检查的证明,而非仅凭最终答案,来严格评估大语言模型(LLM)的推理能力。该套件包含15项任务,涵盖证明编写、验证等环节,核心采用紧凑的最小自然演绎语言(NDL)进行表述。其评估框架能容忍表面偏差并定位首个实质性推理错误,实现了机械化、可复现的细粒度验证。测试表明,前沿模型在基础任务上表现尚可,但在需要全局组合推理或底层证明合成的困难任务上仍存在显著局限。研究还识别并量化了模型“生成有缺陷证明却能在局部正确识别其错误”的“认识不稳定”现象。
不再只看答案对不对,而是让机器一步步检查证明,ProofGrid 戳中了 LLM 推理的一个盲区,很多模型产出的证明连自己都不信,这个发现挺要命的。
We introduce ProofGrid, a benchmark suite for evaluating LLM reasoning through machine-checkable proofs rather than final answers alone. ProofGrid contains 15 tasks spanning proof writing, proof checking, proof masking, and proof gap-filling. Tasks are expressed in minimal formal notation, especially NDL, a compact natural-deduction language that fits in short prompts and supports precise, auditable verification. This yields mechanical, reproducible, and fine-grained evaluation rather than judgments by humans or LLMs. ProofGrid covers a calibrated difficulty spectrum, from foundational reasoning tests to structurally rich challenge tasks that no current model solves, while minimizing reliance on domain knowledge, solver delegation, and long-context artifacts. We also develop a comparative framework for reasoning benchmarks and use it to situate ProofGrid relative to existing work in terms of representation, verification guarantees, and reasoning depth. Methodologically, we introduce an instrumented proof-checking pipeline that tolerates minor surface deviations while locating the first substantive reasoning failure, improving measurement resolution and separating proof planning from low-level execution noise. Using this pipeline, we evaluate a broad range of open and proprietary models. Results show rapid progress but substantial remaining limits: frontier models perform well on several foundational tasks, yet difficult tasks, especially those requiring global combinatorial reasoning or low-level proof synthesis, remain far from solved. We also identify epistemic instability, where models generate flawed proofs yet correctly reject those local inferences in isolation, and formalize this with an Epistemic Stability Index. Finally, we complement accuracy with 2PL IRT analyses, Wright maps, and a normalized task-discrimination measure based on Fisher information.
来源:HuggingFace Daily Papers(社区热门论文) · arxiv.org