Commonsense reasoning often involves evaluating multiple plausible interpretations rather than selecting a single atomic answer, yet most benchmarks rely on single-label evaluation, obscuring whether statements are jointly plausible, mutually exclusive, or jointly implausible. We introduce LOGICAL-COMMONSENSEQA, a benchmark that reframes commonsense reasoning as logical composition over pairs of atomic statements using plausibility-level operators (AND, OR and NEITHER/NOR). Evaluating instruction-tuned, reasoning-specialized, and fine-tuned models under zero-shot, few-shot, and chain-of-thought prompting, we find that while models perform reasonably on conjunctive and moderately on disjunctive reasoning, performance degrades sharply on negation-based questions. LOGICAL-COMMONSENSEQA exposes fundamental reasoning limitations and provides a controlled framework for advancing compositional commonsense reasoning.
@article{arxiv.2601.16504,
title = {LOGICAL-COMMONSENSEQA: A Benchmark for Logical Commonsense Reasoning},
author = {Obed Junias and Maria Leonor Pacheco},
journal= {arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.16504},
year = {2026}
}