arXiv:2607. 01306v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Counterfactual explanations explain machine learning predictions by identifying minimal input changes that would alter a model's decision.
By Pavel Iakovets, Liyanapathiranage Sudeepika Wajirakumari Samarathunga, Martin Thomas Horsch, Fadi Al Machot
arXiv:2606. 04505v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Scientific simulators are increasingly being integrated into LLM-driven systems for high-stakes simulation-driven decision-making.
By Yuhan Yang, Ruipu Li, Alexander Rodr\'iguez
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
arXiv:2606. 16603v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM-based agents have demonstrated strong capabilities in data-intensive analytical tasks, yet their outputs are rarely verifiable: a reliance on linear text trajectories makes their reasoning difficult to audit.
By Jiajie Jin, Zhao Yang, Wenle Liao, Yuyang Hu, Guanting Dong, Xiaoxi Li, Yutao Zhu, Zhicheng Dou
arXiv:2607. 08093v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) increasingly act as integrated data-science agents, combining abstract reasoning with advanced tool use.
By Andrej Leban, Yuekai Sun
arXiv:2510. 27544v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Current training paradigms, optimized for long-horizon reasoning trace execution, have made Large Language Models (LLMs) excel at pattern matching and forward simulation of reasoning, but underperform at counterfactual causal understanding and reasoning.
By Nikolaus Holzer, William Fishell, Baishakhi Ray, Mark Santolucito
Context: Large Language Models (LLMs) offer natural-language flexibility for automated requirements elicitation but frequently generate structurally invalid requirements and logical inconsistencies, lacking formal correctness guarantees. Objectives: This study aims to eliminate logical inconsistencies and enforce structural conformance in LLM-generated requirements while quantifying the LLM's pre-validation decision uncertainty within a formal domain model.
arXiv:2608. 12877v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-hop fact verification, which verifies claims by reasoning over multiple pieces of evidence, is critical for combating misinformation on social media yet remains highly challenging.
By Runze Zhao, Zixin Tang, Xiaoshuai Hao, Leyuan Chang, Xiaopeng Fu, Boyu Qiao, Dongyang Zhang
arXiv:2607. 26220v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Context: Large Language Models (LLMs) offer natural-language flexibility for automated requirements elicitation but frequently generate structurally invalid requirements and logical inconsistencies, lacking formal correctness guarantees.
By Ahmed Ibrahim
arXiv:2511. 01650v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly entering specialized, safety-critical engineering workflows governed by strict quantitative standards and immutable physical laws, making rigorous evaluation of their reasoning capabilities imperative.
By Ayesha Gull, Muhammad Usman Safder, Rania Elbadry, Fan Zhang, Veselin Stoyanov, Preslav Nakov, Zhuohan Xie
arXiv:2605. 24528v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Real world decision-making requires constructing mental models under uncertainty over evidence, over the underlying causal rules, and over the state of the world itself.
By Jeffrey Qin, Wasu Top Piriyakulkij, Zhuangfei Gao, Mia Radovanovic, Jessica Sommerville, Kevin Ellis, Marta Kryven
Large language models (LLMs) increasingly act as integrated data-science agents, combining abstract reasoning with advanced tool use. Yet the relevant benchmark landscape largely divides into symbolic causal reasoning benchmarks without realistic data analysis or data analysis benchmarks without a principled causal data-generating structure.