Geonhee Kim

Geonhee Kim, Marco Valentino, André Freitas

Recent studies on reasoning in language models (LMs) have sparked a debate on whether they can learn systematic inferential principles or merely exploit superficial patterns in the training data. To understand and uncover the mechanisms adopted for formal reasoning in LMs, this paper presents a mechanistic interpretation of syllogistic inference. Specifically, we present a methodology for circuit discovery aimed at interpreting content-independent and formal reasoning mechanisms. Through two distinct intervention methods, we uncover a sufficient and necessary circuit involving middle-term suppression that elucidates how LMs transfer information to derive valid conclusions from premises. Furthermore, we investigate how belief biases manifest in syllogistic inference, finding evidence of partial contamination from additional attention heads responsible for encoding commonsense and contextualized knowledge. Finally, we explore the generalization of the discovered mechanisms across various syllogistic schemes, model sizes and architectures. The identified circuit is sufficient and necessary for syllogistic schemes on which the models achieve high accuracy (>60%), with compatible activation patterns across models of different families. Overall, our findings suggest that LMs learn transferable content-independent reasoning mechanisms, but that, at the same time, such mechanisms do not involve generalizable and abstract logical primitives, being susceptible to contamination by the same world knowledge acquired during pre-training.

Marco Valentino, Geonhee Kim, Dhairya Dalal et al.

Large language models (LLMs) frequently demonstrate reasoning limitations, often conflating content plausibility (i.e., material inference) with logical validity (i.e., formal inference). This can result in biased inferences, where plausible arguments are incorrectly deemed logically valid or vice versa. Mitigating this limitation is critical, as it undermines the trustworthiness and generalizability of LLMs in applications that demand rigorous logical consistency. This paper investigates the problem of mitigating content biases on formal reasoning through activation steering. Specifically, we curate a controlled syllogistic reasoning dataset to disentangle formal validity from content plausibility. After localising the layers responsible for formal and material inference, we investigate contrastive activation steering methods for test-time interventions. An extensive empirical analysis on different LLMs reveals that contrastive steering consistently supports linear control over content biases. However, we observe that a static approach is insufficient for improving all the tested models. We then leverage the possibility to control content effects by dynamically determining the value of the steering parameters via fine-grained conditional methods. We found that conditional steering is effective on unresponsive models, achieving up to 15% absolute improvement in formal reasoning accuracy with a newly introduced kNN-based method (K-CAST). Finally, additional experiments reveal that steering for content effects is robust to prompt variations, incurs minimal side effects on language modeling capabilities, and can partially generalize to out-of-distribution reasoning tasks. Practically, this paper demonstrates that activation-level interventions can offer a scalable strategy for enhancing the robustness of LLMs, contributing towards more systematic and unbiased formal reasoning.