The key characteristic of our benchmark is that for each logical reasoning problem, we **synthetically generate variants** with **different premise orders.** Specifically, we denote the order that conforms to the ground truth proof with forward chaining as the _forward_ order, where the rule applied in each derivation step is sequentially presented in the problem description. Intuitively, presenting premises in the forward order simplifies the problem for humans, as this allows us to write the proof on-the-fly while reading the premises. Conversely, a premise ordering that is more random increases the task difficulty, since carrying out the derivation requires us to repetitively look for premises for each reasoning step. Motivated by this intuition, we categorize different premise orders based on their Kendall tau distance \(\tau\)(Cicirello, 2019; Sen, 1968) to the forward order, normalized into the range \([-1,1]\). Specifically, \(\tau=1\) is the _forward_ order, and we denote the order with \(\tau=-1\) as the _backward_ order, which is the reverse of the forward order and aligns with the proof via backward chaining. \(\tau\approx 0\) suggests that there is no strong correlation between the premise order in the problem description and the proof. To thoroughly investigate the LLM preference on different premise orders, we evaluate the model performance on \(\tau=0.5\), \(0\) and \(-0.5\), in addition to the forward (\(\tau=1\)) and backward (\(\tau=-1\)) orders. We present examples with \(\tau=1\) and \(0\) in Figure 1, and defer examples with other \(\tau\) values to Figure 11 in Appendix B.