Humans and LLMs Diverge on Probabilistic Inferences
Human reasoning often involves working over limited information to arrive at probabilistic conclusions. In its simplest form, this involves making an inference that is not strictly entailed by a premise, but rather only likely given the premise. While reasoning LLMs have demonstrated strong performance on logical and mathematical tasks, their behavior on such open-ended, non-deterministic inferences remains largely unexplored. We introduce ProbCOPA, a dataset of 210 handcrafted probabilistic inferences in English, each annotated for inference likelihood by 25--30 human participants. We find that human responses are graded and varied, revealing probabilistic judgments of the inferences in our dataset. Comparing these judgments with responses from eight state-of-the-art reasoning LLMs, we show that models consistently fail to produce human-like distributions. Finally, analyzing LLM reasoning chains, we find evidence of a common reasoning pattern used to evaluate such inferences. Our findings reveal persistent differences between humans and LLMs, and underscore the need to evaluate reasoning beyond deterministic settings.
69a853a28b5b27c7ea9fa4c1
Gaurav Kamath
69a853a28b5b27c7ea9fa4c2
Sreenath Madathil
69a853a28b5b27c7ea9fa4c3
Sebastian Schuster
69a853a28b5b27c7ea9fa4c4
Marie-Catherine de Marneffe
69a853a28b5b27c7ea9fa4c5
Siva Reddy
Humans and LLMs Diverge on Probabilistic Inferences
Human reasoning often involves working over limited information to arrive at probabilistic conclusions. In its simplest form, this involves making an inference that is not strictly entailed by a premise, but rather only likely given the premise. While reasoning LLMs have demonstrated strong performance on logical and mathematical tasks, their behavior on such open-ended, non-deterministic inferences remains largely unexplored. We introduce ProbCOPA, a dataset of 210 handcrafted probabilistic inferences in English, each annotated for inference likelihood by 25--30 human participants. We find that human responses are graded and varied, revealing probabilistic judgments of the inferences in our dataset. Comparing these judgments with responses from eight state-of-the-art reasoning LLMs, we show that models consistently fail to produce human-like distributions. Finally, analyzing LLM reasoning chains, we find evidence of a common reasoning pattern used to evaluate such inferences. Our findings reveal persistent differences between humans and LLMs, and underscore the need to evaluate reasoning beyond deterministic settings.
ProbCOPA dataset reveals that LLMs consistently fail to replicate human probabilistic reasoning patterns in open-ended inferences, despite strong performance on logical and mathematical tasks.
probabilistic inferences reasoning LLMs logical reasoning mathematical tasks human-like distributions reasoning chains