arXiv:2608. 19009v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly paired with verifiers (step checkers, self-consistency filters, tool-based fact checkers, formal proof assistants) that claim to detect the model's errors.
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.
arXiv:2608.28725v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as graders, verifiers, and process auditors, but most mathematical evaluations still emphasize final...
arXiv:2607. 12650v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Tool access alone does not make LLM empirical reasoning governable: accepted outputs need not descend from attested evidence, and accepted deductions need not hold up under formal scrutiny.
LogicSkills is a benchmark designed to isolate three core logical abilities in large language models: formal symbolization, countermodel construction, and validity assessment. The dataset draws items from the two-variable fragment of first‑order logic without identity, presented in both English and a Carrollian nonce‑word language, and all instances are solver‑verified with Z3. Results show that conventional instruction‑tuned LLMs excel at validity assessment but struggle with symbolization and countermodel construction, whereas recent reasoning‑tuned models perform well across all tasks, indicating a more systematic logical skill profile.
arXiv:2607. 29549v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models have demonstrated strong mathematical problem-solving capabilities, yet reliably verifying their candidate answers remains challenging.
arXiv:2607. 26102v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Mathematical chain of thought (CoT) evaluation is commonly reduced to whether the final answer matches a reference.
arXiv:2606. 13706v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We present HierSVA, an integrated suite that combines a pipeline, dataset, and benchmark for LLM-driven hierarchical hardware formal verification.
arXiv:2603. 18334v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: As Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly assist secure software development, their ability to meet the rigorous demands of Rust program verification remains unclear.
The paper introduces an epistemically and formally grounded ensemble (EFG) of large language model judges to evaluate autoformalization tasks in formal mathematics. It defines four criteria—logical preservation, mathematical consistency, formal quality, and formal validity—to provide a transparent, multi‑granular assessment. Experiments show that this ensemble outperforms coarse‑grained models, offering a scalable and interpretable proxy for evaluating formal mathematical reasoning.
arXiv:2606. 06523v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Equipping Large Language Models (LLMs) to execute reliable multi-step workflows has become a central challenge in artificial intelligence.
arXiv:2606. 17529v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Scientific machine-learning (SciML) surrogates approximate expensive simulations, but exact expected outputs for arbitrary inputs are unavailable (the oracle problem).
arXiv:2608. 03291v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning improves large language model (LLM) performance while also providing an observable interface to the model's reasoning process.