Data-driven Machine Learning Cannot Reach Symbolic-level Logical Reasoning -- The Limit of the Scaling Law
arXiv AIArchived Jun 26, 2026✓ Full text saved
arXiv:2606.26454v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Sphere neural networks have achieved symbolic level syllogistic reasoning without training data, raising the question of where the limit of the scaling law for logical reasoning lies, i.e., whether data-driven machine learning systems can achieve the same level by increasing training data and training time. We show two methodological limitations that prevent supervised deep learning from reaching the symbolic-level syllogistic reasoning: (1) traini
Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary· Claude Sonnet
Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence
[Submitted on 24 Jun 2026]
Data-driven Machine Learning Cannot Reach Symbolic-level Logical Reasoning -- The Limit of the Scaling Law
Tiansi Dong, Mateja Jamnik, Pietro Liò
Sphere neural networks have achieved symbolic level syllogistic reasoning without training data, raising the question of where the limit of the scaling law for logical reasoning lies, i.e., whether data-driven machine learning systems can achieve the same level by increasing training data and training time. We show two methodological limitations that prevent supervised deep learning from reaching the symbolic-level syllogistic reasoning: (1) training data can not distinguish all 24 types of valid syllogistic reasoning; (2) end-to-end mapping from premises to conclusion introduces contradictory training targets between neural components for pattern recognition and logical reasoning. Beside theoretical analysis, we experimentally illustrate that Euler Net cannot achieve rigorous syllogistic reasoning. We further challenge the most recent ChatGPTs (GPT-5-nano and GPT-5) to determine the satisfiability of syllogistic statements in four surface forms (patterns): words, double words, simple symbols, and long random symbols, showing that surface forms affect the reasoning performance and that ChatGPT GPT-5 may reach 100% accuracy but still provide incorrect explanations. As empirical training processes are stopped after achieving 100% accuracy, we conclude that supervised machine learning systems will not attain the rigour of symbolic logical reasoning.
Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
Cite as: arXiv:2606.26454 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2606.26454v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.26454
Focus to learn more
Submission history
From: Tiansi Dong [view email]
[v1] Wed, 24 Jun 2026 23:30:08 UTC (3,456 KB)
Access Paper:
HTML (experimental)
view license
Current browse context:
cs.AI
< prev | next >
new | recent | 2026-06
Change to browse by:
cs
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?)