# Reasoning or a Semblance of it? A Diagnostic Study of Transitive Reasoning in LLMs

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.20200 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.20200/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 4 of its 34 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 26 Oct 2024.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reasoning-benchmarks-and-evaluation/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 4 of 4)

- [Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.09288/) (2023)
- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [Scaling Instruction-Finetuned Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.11416/) (2022)
- [Larger language models do in-context learning differently](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.03846/) (2023)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) on reasoning benchmarks demonstrates their ability to solve compositional questions. However, little is known of whether these models engage in genuine logical reasoning or simply rely on implicit cues to generate answers. In this paper, we investigate the transitive reasoning capabilities of two distinct LLM architectures, LLaMA 2 and Flan-T5, by manipulating facts within two compositional datasets: QASC and Bamboogle. We controlled for potential cues that might influence the models' performance, including (a) word/phrase overlaps across sections of test input; (b) models' inherent knowledge during pre-training or fine-tuning; and (c) Named Entities. Our findings reveal that while both models leverage (a), Flan-T5 shows more resilience to experiments (b and c), having less variance than LLaMA 2. This suggests that models may develop an understanding of transitivity through fine-tuning on knowingly relevant datasets, a hypothesis we leave to future work.