arXiv:2606. 24124v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-step reasoning with Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting remains fragile: logical errors or hallucinations in early steps silently propagate, producing confident but incorrect conclusions.
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.
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.
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.
FaithSieve is a Lean‑assisted framework that fine‑grains natural‑language mathematical proofs into local reasoning units, extracts typed proof obligations, and verifies them with formal evidence gated by semantic alignment. It introduces two expert‑verified datasets—ProofLoc‑Olympiad and ProofLoc‑University—to benchmark first‑error localization. On these benchmarks, FaithSieve outperforms direct‑judging baselines, achieving 81.43% and 84.5% exact first‑error accuracy respectively.
arXiv:2604. 01993v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Multi-hop QA benchmarks often reward Large Language Models (LLMs) for spurious correctness, where models reach correct answers through invalid intermediate reasoning.
arXiv:2607. 14149v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Although large language models (LLMs) have set benchmarks for zero-shot reasoning, their deployment remains cost-prohibitive and environmentally taxing.
arXiv:2609.38409v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Recent progress in large language model reasoning has been driven by benchmarks and reinforcement learning environments with automatically verifiable r...
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.
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...
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.
arXiv:2603. 05290v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) achieve promising performance, yet their ability to reason remains poorly understood.
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.