Jason Chan

Jason Chan, Zhixue Zhao, Robert Gaizauskas

Existing NLP work commonly treats contradictions as errors to be resolved by choosing which statements to accept or discard. Yet a key aspect of human reasoning in social interactions and professional domains is the ability to hypothesize explanations that reconcile contradictions. For example, "Cassie hates coffee" and "She buys coffee everyday" may appear contradictory, yet both are compatible if Cassie has the unenviable daily chore of buying coffee for all her coworkers. Despite the growing reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs), their ability to hypothesize such reconciliatory explanations remains largely unexplored. To address this gap, we introduce the task of reconciliatory explanation generation, where models must generate explanations that effectively render contradictory statements compatible. We propose a novel method of repurposing existing natural language inference (NLI) datasets, and introduce quality metrics that enable scalable automatic evaluation. Experiments with 18 LLMs show that most models achieve limited success in this task, and that the benefit of extending test-time compute by "thinking" plateaus as model size increases. Our results highlight an under-explored dimension of LLM reasoning and the need to address this limitation in enhancing LLMs' downstream applications such as chatbots and scientific aids.

Jason Chan, Zhixue Zhao, Robert Gaizauskas

Existing work investigates the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) to uncover their limitations, human-like biases and underlying processes. Such studies include evaluations of base LLMs (pre-trained on unlabeled corpora only) for this purpose. Our position paper argues that evaluating base LLMs' reasoning capabilities raises inherent methodological concerns that are overlooked in such existing studies. We highlight the fundamental mismatch between base LLMs' pretraining objective and normative qualities, such as correctness, by which reasoning is assessed. In particular, we show how base LLMs generate logically valid or invalid conclusions as coincidental byproducts of conforming to purely linguistic patterns of statistical plausibility. This fundamental mismatch challenges the assumptions that (a) base LLMs' outputs can be assessed as their bona fide attempts at correct answers or conclusions; and (b) conclusions about base LLMs' reasoning can generalize to post-trained LLMs optimized for successful instruction-following. We call for a critical re-examination of existing work that relies implicitly on these assumptions, and for future work to account for these methodological pitfalls.

Jason Chan, Robert Gaizauskas, Zhixue Zhao

Formal logic enables computers to reason in natural language by representing sentences in symbolic forms and applying rules to derive conclusions. However, in what our study characterizes as "rulebreaker" scenarios, this method can lead to conclusions that are typically not inferred or accepted by humans given their common sense and factual knowledge. Inspired by works in cognitive science, we create RULEBREAKERS, the first dataset for rigorously evaluating the ability of large language models (LLMs) to recognize and respond to rulebreakers (versus non-rulebreakers) in a human-like manner. Evaluating seven LLMs, we find that most models, including GPT-4o, achieve mediocre accuracy on RULEBREAKERS and exhibit some tendency to over-rigidly apply logical rules unlike what is expected from typical human reasoners. Further analysis suggests that this apparent failure is potentially associated with the models' poor utilization of their world knowledge and their attention distribution patterns. Whilst revealing a limitation of current LLMs, our study also provides a timely counterbalance to a growing body of recent works that propose methods relying on formal logic to improve LLMs' general reasoning capabilities, highlighting their risk of further increasing divergence between LLMs and human-like reasoning.

Jason Chan, Robert Gaizauskas, Zhixue Zhao

As large language models (LLMs) are increasing integrated into fact-checking pipelines, formal logic is often proposed as a rigorous means by which to mitigate bias, errors and hallucinations in these models' outputs. For example, some neurosymbolic systems verify claims by using LLMs to translate natural language into logical formulae and then checking whether the proposed claims are logically sound, i.e. whether they can be validly derived from premises that are verified to be true. We argue that such approaches structurally fail to detect misleading claims due to systematic divergences between conclusions that are logically sound and inferences that humans typically make and accept. Drawing on studies in cognitive science and pragmatics, we present a typology of cases in which logically sound conclusions systematically elicit human inferences that are unsupported by the underlying premises. Consequently, we advocate for a complementary approach: leveraging the human-like reasoning tendencies of LLMs as a feature rather than a bug, and using these models to validate the outputs of formal components in neurosymbolic systems against potentially misleading conclusions.

Nima Hadidi, Jason Chan, Ebrahim Feghhi et al.

Surface electromyography (sEMG) at the wrists could enable natural, keyboard-free text entry, yet the state-of-the-art emg2qwerty baseline still misrecognizes $51.8\%$ of characters in the zero-shot setting on unseen users and $7.0\%$ after user-specific fine-tuning. We trace many of these errors to mismatched cross-user signal statistics, fragile reliance on high-order feature dependencies, and the absence of architectural inductive biases aligned with the bilateral nature of typing. To address these issues, we introduce three simple modifications: (i) Rolling Time Normalization, which adaptively aligns input distributions across users; (ii) Aggressive Channel Masking, which encourages reliance on low-order feature combinations more likely to generalize across users; and (iii) a Split-and-Share encoder that processes each hand independently with weight-shared streams to reflect the bilateral symmetry of the neuromuscular system. Combined with a five-fold reduction in spectral resolution ($33\!\rightarrow\!6$ frequency bands), these components yield a compact Split-and-Share model, SplashNet-mini, which uses only $\tfrac14$ the parameters and $0.6\times$ the FLOPs of the baseline while reducing character-error rate (CER) to $36.4\%$ zero-shot and $5.9\%$ after fine-tuning. An upscaled variant, SplashNet ($\tfrac12$ the parameters, $1.15\times$ the FLOPs of the baseline), further lowers error to $35.7\%$ and $5.5\%$, representing relative improvements of $31\%$ and $21\%$ in the zero-shot and fine-tuned settings, respectively. SplashNet therefore establishes a new state of the art without requiring additional data.