arXiv AI By Genpei Zhang

Symbolic Augmentation Closes a Canonical-Equivalence Blind Spot in Neural Fact-Checkers

Read the original on arXiv AI →

arXiv:2607. 16212v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models hallucinate numbers and units when summarizing scientific text, a failure mode that can silently invert a scientific claim.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 11

Beyond Solver Verdicts: Generative Reward Models for Autoformalization

The paper identifies a new failure mode in neurosymbolic systems called Verdict‑Preserving‑Unfaithfulness (VPU), where incorrect formal encodings can still pass solver checks. It introduces Generative Verification (GenV), a method that uses a language model to produce a continuous reference‑equivalence score without relying on explicit localization. Experiments show GenV+HN achieves high AUROC, generalizes to unseen translators, and improves downstream agent performance by 11.3 points.

By Vikash Singh, Debargha Ganguly, Aman Goel, Ali Torkamani, Xiaoxue Han, Joseph Lilien, Ferhat Erata, Vipin Chaudhary
arXiv AI
Jun 3

Fixing FOLIO and MALLS: Verified Annotations and an LLM-assisted Framework to Focus Human Relabeling

arXiv:2606. 02837v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Accurate translation from Natural Language to First-Order Logic (NL-to-FOL) underpins neurosymbolic AI systems and Natural Language Inference (NLI), making the quality of NL-to-FOL benchmarks essential -- yet these datasets have never been rigorously audited.

By Andrea Brunello, Cristian Curaba, Luca Geatti, Michele Mignani, Angelo Montanari, Nicola Saccomanno
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