arXiv:2608. 07838v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have increasingly supported response generation grounded in user-provided knowledge spanning heterogeneous structures.
By Shibo Chu, Yuze Liu, Tiehua Zhang, Zhishu Shen, Lianghua He, Haofen Wang, Zhijun Ding
arXiv:2603.16654v3 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Evaluating the reasoning abilities of large language models (LLMs) solely from final answers can obscure failures in intermediate steps, espe...
By Xiaojie Gu, Sherry T. Tong, Aosong Feng, Sophia Simeng Han, Jinghui Lu, Yingjian Chen, Yusuke Iwasawa, Yutaka Matsuo, Chanjun Park, Rex Ying, Irene Li
arXiv:2608. 10665v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multimodal large language models often generate reasoning chains containing subtle errors that lead to incorrect answers.
By Rohit Sinha, Kunal Tilaganji, Tanuja Ganu, Nagarajan Natarajan, Amit Sharma, Vineeth Balasubramanian
arXiv:2609.12230v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Question-answering often requires reasoning across multiple connected facts rather than retrieving a single isolated relation. Knowledge graphs (KGs) p...
By Tharaka D. Fonseka, Niraj K. Jha
arXiv:2607. 10562v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating the multi-hop reasoning capabilities of large language models remains a significant challenge.
By JungMin Yun, JuneHyoung Kwon, YoungBin Kim
arXiv:2609.21492v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning has been shown to improve the performance of large language models (LLMs), yet existing optimization methods largely r...
By Jingyu Hu, Shu Yang, Weiru Liu, Di Wang
arXiv:2606. 05402v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large reasoning models (LRMs) produce reasoning traces with non-linear structures, such as backtracking and self-correction, that complicate the evaluation and monitoring of the reasoning process.
By Jinu Lee, Shivam Agarwal, Amruta Parulekar, Siddarth Madala, Dilek Hakkani-Tur, Julia Hockenmaier
arXiv:2607. 23019v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting enables large language models (LLMs) to tackle multi-step reasoning tasks, yet the generated intermediate steps are not guaranteed to be logically sound.
By Zirong Chen, Meiyi Ma
The paper introduces a neuro‑symbolic framework for scientific reasoning that separates symbolic validity and semantic groundedness. A deterministic symbolic verifier acts as a hard filter to guarantee syntactic and arithmetic correctness, while a Process Reward Model (PRM) is trained on verifier‑accepted steps to assess contextual grounding. The authors propose Counterfactual Symbolic Perturbation (CSP) to generate hard negative examples that pass the verifier but are logically flawed, enabling efficient PRM training and a verifier‑first constrained search at inference.
By Yuxin Zi, Cong Xu, Suparna Bhattacharya, Martin Foltin, Amit Sheth
arXiv:2607. 17575v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We propose ARBITER, a novel LLM guardrail framework that introduces two key ideas: (i) dual-hypothesis reasoning, a reasoning method for LLM guardrails that explicitly considers both safe and unsafe interpretations of a prompt before making a safety decision, and (ii) multi-component supervised fine-tuning (MC-SFT), a structured training loss for reasoning-based guardrails that decomposes LLM outputs into logical components and weights them according to their importance.
By Md Asiful Islam, Mihai Surdeanu
TRACE is a new benchmark that evaluates the safety of Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) across the entire inference pipeline, including prompts, reasoning traces, and final responses. It provides prompts in two languages covering nine risk categories and ten attack strategies, and for each prompt four LRMs generate traces and responses that are annotated for safety with supporting evidence extracted from the source text. Evaluation of 18 guardrail models on TRACE shows that detecting unsafe content in reasoning traces is much harder than in prompts or final responses, and that current models struggle to extract the necessary evidence.
By Zhenyu Wu, Siyuan Chen, Changchun Yang, Jiaqi Dong, Min Zhou, Ali Almadan, Talal Hammad, Faisal Wahbo, Aminullah Tora, Mona Alshahrani, Xin Gao
The paper introduces Proof‑R1, a reinforcement‑learning framework that trains large language models to generate verifiable proofs for natural‑language logical reasoning tasks. Proof‑R1 only accepts a generated conclusion into the proof state when it satisfies formal verification constraints, ensuring each reasoning step is machine‑checkable. The method also reconstructs the dependency closure that supports the final answer, aligning credit with valid proof steps, and shows improved answer accuracy and verifiability across multiple benchmarks and models.
By Qili Zhang, Qianren Mao, Hanze Cai, Kaiming Zhao, Yuening He, Xihan Lei, Yashuo Luo, Hanwen Hao, Yutong Gu, Likang Xiao, Zhijun Chen, Weifeng Jiang, Haoyi Zhou, Jianxin Li