Lin Ren

Lin Ren, Guohui Xiao, Guilin Qi et al.

Answer Set Programming (ASP) is a powerful paradigm for non-monotonic reasoning. Recently, large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated promising capabilities in logical reasoning. Despite this potential, current evaluations of LLM capabilities in ASP are often limited. Existing works normally employ overly simplified ASP programs, do not support negation, disjunction, or multiple answer sets. Furthermore, there is a lack of benchmarks that introduce tasks specifically designed for ASP solving. To bridge this gap, we introduce ASPBench, a comprehensive ASP benchmark, including three ASP specific tasks: ASP entailment, answer set verification, and answer set computation. Our extensive evaluations on ASPBench reveal that while 14 state-of-the-art LLMs, including \emph{deepseek-r1}, \emph{o4-mini}, and \emph{gemini-2.5-flash-thinking}, perform relatively well on the first two simpler tasks, they struggle with answer set computation, which is the core of ASP solving. These findings offer insights into the current limitations of LLMs in ASP solving. This highlights the need for new approaches that integrate symbolic reasoning capabilities more effectively. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/HomuraT/ASPBench.

Yongrui Chen, Zhiqiang Liu, Jing Yu et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated substantial progress on reasoning tasks involving unstructured text, yet their capabilities significantly deteriorate when reasoning requires integrating structured external knowledge such as knowledge graphs, code snippets, or formal logic. This limitation is partly due to the absence of benchmarks capable of systematically evaluating LLM performance across diverse structured knowledge modalities. To address this gap, we introduce \textbf{\textsc{OneEval}}, a comprehensive benchmark explicitly designed to assess the knowledge-intensive reasoning capabilities of LLMs across four structured knowledge modalities, unstructured text, knowledge graphs, code, and formal logic, and five critical domains (general knowledge, government, science, law, and programming). \textsc{OneEval} comprises 4,019 carefully curated instances and includes a challenging subset, \textsc{OneEval}\textsubscript{Hard}, consisting of 1,285 particularly difficult cases. Through extensive evaluation of 18 state-of-the-art open-source and proprietary LLMs, we establish three core findings: a) \emph{persistent limitations in structured reasoning}, with even the strongest model achieving only 32.2\% accuracy on \textsc{OneEval}\textsubscript{Hard}; b) \emph{performance consistently declines as the structural complexity of the knowledge base increases}, with accuracy dropping sharply from 53\% (textual reasoning) to 25\% (formal logic); and c) \emph{diminishing returns from extended reasoning chains}, highlighting the critical need for models to adapt reasoning depth appropriately to task complexity. We release the \textsc{OneEval} datasets, evaluation scripts, and baseline results publicly, accompanied by a leaderboard to facilitate ongoing advancements in structured knowledge reasoning.