Despite the increasing interest in the reasoning abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs), existing work shows limitations in assessing logic abilities independently from lexical memory. We address this gap with Mystery-Zebra. This robust two-part benchmark (4,290 puzzles) challenges the logic abstraction abilities of LLMs in two setups: (1) a lexical obfuscation setup tests the dependence of LLMs on lexical content based on two canonical grid puzzles widely spread on the Internet; (2) a set of new grid puzzles in 42 different sizes and 12 difficulty levels tests how the formal difficulty degree of a puzzle affects LLMs.We test open and closed-weight LLMs on both parts of the benchmark. The results on part two suggest that model sizes up to 70B parameters have only a minor influence when solving newly generated puzzles, while performance mainly relates to the number of items in the puzzle. The results on the first part of the benchmark suggest that the applied obfuscation strategies help to mitigate effects of logic puzzles being part of LLM training data, showing a drastic drop in performance for obfuscated versions of well-known puzzles. In addition we conduct a case-study on the first part of the benchmark predicting the position of single items, unveiling that the reasoning abilities of LLMs are mainly limited to a few consecutive steps of reasoning.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated promising results on a range of reasoning benchmarks—particularly in formal logic, mathematical tasks, and Chain-of-Thought prompting—less is known about their capabilities in unconstrained natural language reasoning. Argumentative reasoning, a form of reasoning naturally expressed in language and central to everyday discourse, presents unique challenges for LLMs due to its reliance on context, implicit assumptions, and value judgments. This paper addresses a gap in the study of reasoning in LLMs by presenting the first large-scale evaluation of their unconstrained natural language reasoning capabilities based on natural language argumentation. The paper offers three contributions: (i) the formalisation of a new strategy designed to evaluate argumentative reasoning in LLMs: argument-component selection; (ii) the creation of the Argument Reasoning Tasks (ART) dataset, a new benchmark for argument-component selection based on argument structures for natural language reasoning; and (iii) an extensive experimental analysis involving four different models, demonstrating the limitations of LLMs on natural language reasoning tasks.

Most studies on the linguistic information encoded by BERT primarily focus on English. Our study examines a monolingual German BERT model using a semantic classification task on newspaper articles, analysing the linguistic features influencing classification decisions through SHAP values. We use the TüBa-D/Z corpus, a resource with gold-standard annotations for a set of linguistic features, including POS, inflectional morphology, phrasal, clausal, and dependency structures. Semantic features of nouns are evaluated via the GermaNet ontology using shared hypernyms. Our results indicate that the features identified in English also affect classification in German but suggests important language- and task-specific features as well.