  We explore whether Large Language Models (LLMs) are capable of logical
reasoning with distorted facts, which we call Deduction under Perturbed
Evidence (DUPE). DUPE presents a unique challenge to LLMs since they typically
rely on their parameters, which encode mostly accurate information, to reason
and make inferences. However, in DUPE, LLMs must reason over manipulated or
falsified evidence present in their prompts, which can result in false
conclusions that are valid only under the manipulated evidence. Our goal with
DUPE is to determine whether LLMs can arrive at these false conclusions and
identify whether the dominant factor influencing the deduction process is the
encoded data in the parameters or the manipulated evidence in the prompts. To
evaluate the DUPE capabilities of LLMs, we create a DUPEd version of the
StrategyQA dataset, where facts are manipulated to reverse the answer to the
question. Our findings show that even the most advanced GPT models struggle to
reason on manipulated facts - showcasing poor DUPE skills - with accuracy
dropping by 45% compared to the original dataset. We also investigate prompt
settings inspired from student simulation models, which mitigate the accuracy
drop to some extent. Our findings have practical implications for understanding
the performance of LLMs in real-world applications such as student simulation
models that involve reasoning over inaccurate information.
