arXiv AI

FVRuleLearner: Operator-Level Reasoning Tree (Op-Tree)-Based Rules Learning for Formal Verification

arXiv:2604. 03245v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The remarkable reasoning and code generation capabilities of large language models (LLMs) have recently motivated increasing interest in automating formal verification (FV), a process that ensures hardware correctness through mathematically precise assertions but remains highly labor-intensive, particularly through the translation of natural language into SystemVerilog Assertions (NL-to-SVA).

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
Jun 9

Artificial Intelligence for Mathematical Reasoning: An Integrated Survey of Language Models, Neuro-symbolic Systems, and Verified Discovery

arXiv:2606. 08728v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Mathematical reasoning has long served as a stringent test of machine intelligence; over the past decade, it has moved from a niche problem within NLP to one of the most consequential AI frontiers.

By Syed Rifat Raiyan, Mohsinul Kabir, Hasan Mahmud, Md Kamrul Hasan
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
arXiv AI
Sep 10

HoarePrompt: Structural Reasoning About Program Correctness in Natural Language

HoarePrompt is a new method that applies program verification concepts to natural language requirements, using large language models to generate step‑by‑step natural language descriptions of program states. It incorporates a few‑shot k‑induction technique to handle loops and then evaluates whether the annotated program satisfies the requirements. On the CoCoClaNeL dataset, HoarePrompt raises the Matthews correlation coefficient by 61% over zero‑shot chain‑of‑thought prompts and by 106% over test‑generation classifiers, with the inductive reasoning component adding a 26% MCC improvement.

By Dimitrios Stamatios Bouras, Yihan Dai, Tairan Wang, Yingfei Xiong, Sergey Mechtaev