ChaosBench-Logic v2 is a 40,886-question benchmark designed to evaluate large language models’ logical reasoning about dynamical systems, featuring 165 systems, 27 first‑order logic predicates, and 78 axiom edges. The accompanying CARE protocol highlights failure modes such as prior collapse, paraphrase inconsistency, and difficulty with parameter‑dependent dynamics. In tests of 14 models, regime‑transition reasoning remains near random (MCC = 0.05), while first‑order deduction with given premises achieves MCC = 0.52, with proprietary models excelling in cross‑indicator and consistency tasks and open‑source Qwen 2.5‑32B leading indicator diagnostics.
By Noel Thomas
arXiv:2608. 08786v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) increasingly serve as data-driven reasoners, yet their chains-of-thought (CoT) can be unfaithful even when final answers are correct.
By Wenyao Cui, Huaping Zhang, Yongyi Huang, Qiuchi Li, Jian Xu, Cheng-Lin Liu, Chunxiao Gao, Juan Wang, Baohua Zhang
The paper introduces a pipeline that automatically creates ontology‑grounded multiple‑choice question benchmarks for evaluating large language models (LLMs) on logical reasoning tasks in scientific AI. By using OWL 2 ontologies, correct answers are guaranteed by design and distractors are generated and formally verified as incorrect through an OWL reasoner. Experiments on three ontologies—Pizza, PMDco, and DOID—yielded 112, 2,491, and 15,216 MCQs, respectively, with high natural‑language quality and challenging zero‑shot performance for six LLMs.
By Nishtha N. Vaidya, Stephan Grimm, Thomas Hubauer, Thomas A. Runkler
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:2601.20055v3 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Despite the syntactic fluency of Large Language Models (LLMs), ensuring their logical correctness in high-stakes domains remains a fundamenta...
By Vikash Singh, Darion Cassel, Nathaniel Weir, Nick Feng, Sam Bayless
LiveMathematicianBench is a dynamic multiple‑choice benchmark for research‑level mathematical reasoning, built from recent arXiv papers published after model training cutoffs. It introduces a thirteen‑category logical taxonomy of theorem types and uses a proof‑sketch‑guided distractor pipeline to create plausible but invalid answer choices, enhancing sensitivity to genuine reasoning. Evaluation shows current large language models perform poorly, with the best model scoring 43.5% overall and only 17.6% under substitution‑resistant conditions, indicating the benchmark’s difficulty and realism.
By Linyang He, Qiyao Yu, Hanze Dong, Baohao Liao, Xinxing Xu, Micah Goldblum, Jiang Bian, Nima Mesgarani
arXiv:2605. 22873v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning has become the default strategy for enhancing LLM capabilities, yet its application raises a fundamental question: when is explicit reasoning actually beneficial?
By Wei Xia, Haoqing Wang, Zhi-Hong Deng, Yehui Tang
arXiv:2605. 19723v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Mathematical reasoning is essential for problem-solving in education, science, and industry, serving as a crucial benchmark for evaluating artificial intelligence systems.
By Husnain Amjad, Raja Khurram Shahzad, Aamir Shahzad, Mehwish Fatima
arXiv:2607. 27783v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) explore problems through chain-of-thought, but this exploration is buried in unstructured prose.
By Amruta Parulekar, Jinu Lee, Dilek Hakkani-T\"ur, Hari Sundaram
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 investigates how large language models (LLMs) interpret negation across different logical semantics—open‑world vs. closed‑world, two‑ vs. three‑valued, and credulous vs. skeptical reasoning. Using the newly introduced NAFBench, a procedural generator that creates solver‑certified logic programs and their natural‑language verbalizations, the authors evaluate LLMs on four semantic viewpoints (SLDNF, well‑founded semantics, and stable‑model semantics). Results show a persistent gap: even the strongest models achieve only 59–74% accuracy, with many models sensitive to rule ordering and prone to overcommitment on undefined cases, though some frontier models reach near‑perfect performance on a fixed‑complexity set.
"whyItMatters":"The study highlights that current LLMs struggle to reliably follow explicitly specified negation semantics, underscoring a limitation in their logical reasoning capabilities."
By Qiming Bao, Agnieszka Mensfelt, Michael J. Witbrock, Kostas Stathis
arXiv:2608. 15303v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Test-time compute can substantially improve Large Language Model (LLM) reasoning performance, yet how and when additional compute helps remains poorly understood.
By Bo Wen, Yuhao Chen, Erhan Bilal, Carla Agurto Rios, Chen Wang, Junchen Jiang