Logic & consistency testing

How it works

Fluent prose can hide broken reasoning. Logic and consistency testing asserts the properties any sound reasoner must satisfy: if A>B and B>C then A>C, if 'A is B' then 'B is A' should be answerable, a negated instruction should invert the result, and claims made early in a session shouldn't be contradicted later. Posing structured sets of related questions and checking these invariants exposes reasoning failures that no single answer, taken alone, would reveal.

When to use it

Evaluating reasoning quality; multi-step or multi-turn tasks where internal consistency matters; catching relational and negation failures — especially valuable for a system that reasons across several turns or chained tool calls, where an early inconsistency can silently propagate into a confidently wrong final answer.

Limitations

Captures logical form, not real-world correctness — a model can be perfectly consistent and consistently wrong — and enumerating the relevant invariants for an open-ended task is hard, since most real tasks don't reduce cleanly to transitivity or symmetry the way toy logic puzzles do.

Cite this