LGMT: Logic-Grounded Metamorphic Testing for Evaluating the Reasoning Reliability of LLMs
arXiv AIArchived May 26, 2026✓ Full text saved
arXiv:2605.23965v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve strong performance on logical reasoning benchmarks, yet their reliability remains uncertain. Existing evaluations rely on static benchmarks, which fail to assess robustness under logically equivalent transformations and often overestimate reasoning capability. We propose LGMT (Logic-Grounded Metamorphic Testing), an oracle-free framework that leverages first-order logic (FOL) to evaluate LLM reasoning. By derivi
Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary· Claude Sonnet
Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence
[Submitted on 12 May 2026]
LGMT: Logic-Grounded Metamorphic Testing for Evaluating the Reasoning Reliability of LLMs
Zenghui Zhou, Man Li, Xiaoke Fang, Xinyi Zhou, Weibin Li, Zheng Zheng
Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve strong performance on logical reasoning benchmarks, yet their reliability remains uncertain. Existing evaluations rely on static benchmarks, which fail to assess robustness under logically equivalent transformations and often overestimate reasoning capability. We propose LGMT (Logic-Grounded Metamorphic Testing), an oracle-free framework that leverages first-order logic (FOL) to evaluate LLM reasoning. By deriving metamorphic relations from formal logical equivalences, LGMT constructs semantically invariant test cases and detects reasoning defects through cross-case consistency checking. Experiments on six state-of-the-art LLMs show that LGMT exposes substantial hidden defects missed by traditional reference-based evaluations. We further find that models are particularly sensitive to symbol-level and conclusion-level variations, and that advanced prompting such as Few-shot CoT only partially mitigates these issues. These results suggest that LLM evaluation should move beyond isolated correctness toward robustness under logical invariance. LGMT provides a principled and scalable approach for diagnosing reasoning failures.
Comments: Zheng Zheng is the corresponding author
Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Machine Learning (cs.LG); Software Engineering (cs.SE)
Cite as: arXiv:2605.23965 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2605.23965v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.23965
Focus to learn more
Submission history
From: Zenghui Zhou [view email]
[v1] Tue, 12 May 2026 18:26:59 UTC (2,359 KB)
Access Paper:
view license
Current browse context:
cs.AI
< prev | next >
new | recent | 2026-05
Change to browse by:
cs
cs.LG
cs.SE
References & Citations
NASA ADS
Google Scholar
Semantic Scholar
Export BibTeX Citation
Bookmark
Bibliographic Tools
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data, Media
Demos
Related Papers
About arXivLabs
Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)