arXiv AI

Beyond Surface Forms: Symbolic Edits as a Test for Logical Reasoning with LLMs

arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 28

Neuro-symbolic PRM: Enhancing Scientific Reasoning via Structured Traces and Symbolic Verification

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 AI
Jul 24

Representation Robustness Under Executable Reasoning Constraints in Large Language Models for Mathematical Problem Solving

arXiv:2607. 20520v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly evaluated on mathematical problem solving, yet prior work often treats representationally equivalent formulations as interchangeable and conflates reasoning errors with interface failures.

By Sagnik Nath, Edith Aurora Graf, Liang Zhang, Diego Zapata-Rivera
arXiv Machine Learning
Jun 16

Pushing the Boundaries of Natural Reasoning: Interleaved Bonus from Formal-Logic Verification

arXiv:2601. 22642v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) show remarkable capabilities, yet their stochastic next-token prediction creates logical inconsistencies and reward hacking that formal symbolic systems avoid.

By Chuxue Cao, Jinluan Yang, Haoran Li, Kunhao Pan, Zijian Zhao, Zhengyu Chen, Yuchen Tian, Lijun Wu, Conghui He, Sirui Han, Yike Guo
arXiv AI
Aug 28

Do Language Models Follow Occam's Razor? An Evaluation of Parsimony in Inductive and Abductive Reasoning

The paper investigates whether large language models (LLMs) follow Occam's Razor when performing inductive and abductive reasoning. It introduces a synthetic framework for generating questions that require both types of reasoning and a new automated metric to evaluate the simplicity and correctness of generated hypotheses. Experiments show that while LLMs can handle simple scenarios, they struggle with complex world models and producing high‑quality, simplest hypotheses, even when using advanced reasoning techniques.

By Yunxin Sun, Abulhair Saparov