Logic Before Language: Pre-pretraining on Formal Derivations Fosters Skill Acquisition and Compressibility

Pre-pretraining language models (LMs) on symbolic data can accelerate and improve natural language acquisition. However, existing pre-pretraining tasks, such as Dyck and procedural algorithms, rely on narrow primitives that fail to capture the expressive capacity of natural language. Moreover, prior studies remain restricted to relatively small token budgets, offering limited insight into skill emergence and representational dynamics. To address these limitations, we propose logic pre-pretraining (Logic-PPT) as a principled initialization strategy, leveraging formal derivations to impart richer structural and linguistic biases. Formal derivations require abstract mechanisms that are central to natural language, simultaneously binding variables, connecting quantifiers and relational dependencies, and composing predicate-argument structures over long contexts. Scaling our evaluation to a 100B-token regime, logic pre-pretraining substantially accelerates skill acquisition in LMs, achieving 80\% accuracy on linguistic tasks with 36B fewer tokens than standard initialization, and outperforming alternative pre-pretraining baselines. Mechanistically, formal derivations induce persistent structural reorganization, distinctively characterized by a lower-rank, spectrally concentrated representation space. Crucially, we show that this internal geometry enables improved model compressibility via pruning, matching the dense baseline performance even at $\approx$33\% sparsity.

Neurosymbolic Clinical Trial Matching via LLM-Driven Abduction and Logical Verification

Large Language Models (LLMs) offer a promising path to automate Clinical Trial Matching (CTM), but still struggle with the deterministic verification required for complex eligibility criteria. Conversely, purely symbolic methods provide formal rigour but break down when faced with incomplete patient records and noisy clinical evidence. To bridge this gap, we investigate a hybrid framework for CTM combining LLMs with logical verification. In particular, we introduce an abductive neurosymbolic CTM framework (αNeSy-CTM), which leverages the linguistic and world knowledge in LLMs to support reasoning over noisy and underspecified clinical text. Extensive evaluation demonstrates that αNeSy-CTM substantially outperforms standalone LLM baselines, achieving up to 30% relative improvement over zero-shot baselines. In addition, our analyses confirm the impact of abductive reasoning on CTM, with αNeSy-CTM exhibiting improved accuracy, specificity, and robustness over a non-abductive neurosymbolic setting. Furthermore, αNeSy-CTM and Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning prove highly complementary, highlighting the potential for a hybrid routing policy. Ultimately, this paper demonstrates the impact of neurosymbolic methods for automating CTM, providing a path toward the next generation of auditable, LLM-driven clinical applications.

SciR: A Controllable Benchmark for Scientific Reasoning in LLMs

Three paradigmatic forms of inference recur across scientific reasoning: deduction, induction, and causal abduction. Reliably evaluating LLMs on these in scientific settings is currently out of reach: scientific benchmarks built on human annotations are costly and lack mechanistic ground truth, while synthetic logical-reasoning benchmarks do not resemble real scientific documents. We introduce SciR, a benchmark that combines multi-paradigm reasoning with controllable scientific rendering, anchored on three paradigmatic scientific problems. Tasks are generated from formal objects (deduction tree, inductive rule hypothesis, causal graph) to guarantee verifiable answers, then rendered into multi-document scientific discourse via per-track domain-tuned genres. The construction lets us independently vary two difficulty axes: how hard it is to extract the key information needed for inference, and how hard the principled inference itself is. We test six models. Both axes hurt every model, and their effects compound. The rendering even hurts neurosymbolic pipelines, which hand inference to a verified solver. The two axes yield a per-model extraction-vs-inference profile: for instance, reasoning models like deepseek-r1 mostly surpass non-reasoning instruct models on the inference axis. To our knowledge, SciR is the first multi-paradigm scientific-reasoning benchmark with parametric control on both extraction and inference difficulty.

Is Inference Mediated by Distinct Semantic Structures in LLMs? A Mechanistic Interpretation

Predicting a label correctly does not necessarily require representing the operation that produces it. Transformer representations are known to carry label-level information, but whether they encode semantic operations producing those labels is unclear. We investigate this in Natural Language Inference using controlled premise-hypothesis pairs that differ by a single semantic transformation. Using layer-wise activations, we estimate operation-level subspaces via SVD and test their causal relevance through activation steering in four open-weight decoder models. Transformation effects are decodable with $84.8$-$99\%$ accuracy and occupy partially distinct but overlapping subspaces, exceeding random-subspace baselines. Steering experiments show that these directions causally influence predictions, though steerability varies across models; cross-operation steering further reveals structured interference and a dissociation between subspace selectivity and cross-operation independence. These findings indicate that the models encode not only that a hypothesis relates to a premise but also, in part, how it does so, implying that mechanistic analysis and control should operate at the level of semantic operations rather than predicted labels alone.

Fundamental Reasoning Paradigms Induce Out-of-Domain Generalization in Language Models

Deduction, induction, and abduction are fundamental reasoning paradigms, core for human logical thinking. Although improving Large Language Model (LLM) reasoning has attracted significant research efforts, the extent to which the fundamental paradigms induce generalization has yet to be systematically explored. In this study, we shed light on how the interplay between these core paradigms influences LLMs' reasoning behavior. To this end, we first collect a new dataset of reasoning trajectories from symbolic tasks, each targeting one of the three fundamental paradigms, to abstract from concrete world knowledge. Then, we investigate effective ways for inducing these skills into LLMs. We experiment with a battery of methods including simple fine-tuning, and more complex approaches to increase model depth, or transform a dense model to a mixture-of-experts. We comprehensively evaluate induced models on realistic out-of-domain tasks, that are entirely formulated in natural language and contain real-world knowledge. Our results reveal that our approach yields strong generalizability with substantial performance gains (up to $14.60$) across realistic tasks.

Abstract Activation Spaces for Content-Invariant Reasoning in Large Language Models

Large Language Models (LLMs) often struggle with deductive judgment in syllogistic reasoning, systematically conflating semantic plausibility with formal validity a phenomenon known as content effect. This bias persists even when models generate step-wise explanations, indicating that intermediate rationales may inherit the same semantic shortcuts that affect answers. Recent approaches propose mitigating this issue by increasing inference-time structural constraints, either by encouraging abstract intermediate representations or by intervening directly in the model's internal computations; however, reliably suppressing semantic interference remains an open challenge. To make formal deduction less sensitive to semantic content, we introduce a framework for abstraction-guided reasoning that explicitly separates structural inference from lexical semantics. We construct paired content-laden and abstract syllogisms and use the model's activations on abstract inputs to define an abstract reasoning space. We then learn lightweight Abstractors that, from content-conditioned residual-stream states, predict representations aligned with this space and integrate these predictions via multi-layer interventions during the forward pass. Using cross-lingual transfer as a test bed, we show that abstraction-aligned steering reduces content-driven errors and improves validity-sensitive performance. Our results position activation-level abstraction as a scalable mechanism for enhancing the robustness of formal reasoning in LLMs against semantic interference.

Monotonic Reference-Free Refinement for Autoformalization

While statement autoformalization has advanced rapidly, full-theorem autoformalization remains largely unexplored. Existing iterative refinement methods in statement autoformalization typicall improve isolated aspects of formalization, such as syntactic correctness, but struggle to jointly optimizing multiple quality dimensions, which is critical for full-theorem autoformalization. We introduce a reference-free iterative monotonic process for full-theorem autoformalization that leverages complementary feedback from theorem provers and LLM-based judges, without access to ground-truth proofs or existing formalizations at inference time. Our approach optimizes a masked composite objective over Formal Validity, Logical Preservation, Mathematical Consistency, and Formal Quality, guided by a responsiveness map that indicates how different LLMs acting as different roles preferentially improve each dimension. We further propose an acceptance policy that guarantees certified monotonic improvement, and provide conditions ensuring convergence and termination. Empirical experiments demonstrate the proposed process enables simultaneous improvement across multiple dimensions, achieving 93.44% formal validity and a 78.22% overall score on miniF2F, and 44.09% formal validity and a 29.79% overall score on ProofNet.

Decompose-and-Formalise: Recursively Verifiable Natural Language Inference

Recent work has shown that integrating large language models (LLMs) with theorem provers (TPs) in neuro-symbolic pipelines helps with entailment verification and proof-guided refinement of explanations for natural language inference (NLI). However, scaling such refinement to naturalistic NLI remains difficult: long, syntactically rich inputs and deep multi-step arguments amplify autoformalisation errors, where a single local mismatch can invalidate the proof. Moreover, current methods often handle failures via costly global regeneration due to the difficulty of localising the responsible span or step from prover diagnostics. Aiming to address these problems, we propose a decompose-and-formalise framework that (i) decomposes premise-hypothesis pairs into an entailment tree of atomic steps, (ii) verifies the tree bottom-up to isolate failures to specific nodes, and (iii) performs local diagnostic-guided refinement instead of regenerating the whole explanation. Moreover, to improve faithfulness of autoformalisation, we introduce $θ$-substitution in an event-based logical form to enforce consistent argument-role bindings. Across a range of reasoning tasks using five LLM backbones, our method achieves the highest explanation verification rates, improving over the state-of-the-art by 26.2%, 21.7%, 21.6% and 48.9%, while reducing refinement iterations and runtime and preserving strong NLI accuracy.

Inferring Latent Intentions: Attributional Natural Language Inference in LLM Agents

Attributional inference, the ability to predict latent intentions behind observed actions, is a critical yet underexplored capability for large language models (LLMs) operating in multi-agent environments. Traditional natural language inference (NLI), in fact, fails to capture the nuanced, intention-driven reasoning essential for complex interactive systems. To address this gap, we introduce Attributional NLI (Att-NLI), a framework that extends NLI with principles from social psychology to assess an agent's capacity for abductive intentional inference (generating hypotheses about latent intentions), and subsequent deductive verification (drawing valid logical conclusions). We instantiate Att-NLI via a textual game, Undercover-V, experimenting with three types of LLM agents with varying reasoning capabilities and access to external tools: a standard NLI agent using only deductive inference, an Att-NLI agent employing abductive-deductive inference, and a neuro-symbolic Att-NLI agent performing abductive-deductive inference with external theorem provers. Extensive experiments demonstrate a clear hierarchy of attributional inference capabilities, with neuro-symbolic agents consistently outperforming others, achieving an average win rate of 17.08%. Our results underscore the role that Att-NLI can play in developing agents with sophisticated reasoning capabilities, highlighting, at the same time, the potential impact of neuro-symbolic AI in building rational LLM agents acting in multi-agent environments.

Logic-Parametric Neuro-Symbolic NLI: Controlling Logical Formalisms for Verifiable LLM Reasoning

Large language models (LLMs) and theorem provers (TPs) can be effectively combined for verifiable natural language inference (NLI). However, existing approaches rely on a fixed logical formalism, a feature that limits robustness and adaptability. We propose a logic-parametric framework for neuro-symbolic NLI that treats the underlying logic not as a static background, but as a controllable component. Using the LogiKEy methodology, we embed a range of classical and non-classical formalisms into higher-order logic (HOL), enabling a systematic comparison of inference quality, explanation refinement, and proof behavior. We focus on normative reasoning, where the choice of logic has significant implications. In particular, we compare logic-external approaches, where normative requirements are encoded via axioms, with logic-internal approaches, where normative patterns emerge from the logic's built-in structure. Extensive experiments demonstrate that logic-internal strategies can consistently improve performance and produce more efficient hybrid proofs for NLI. In addition, we show that the effectiveness of a logic is domain-dependent, with first-order logic favouring commonsense reasoning, while deontic and modal logics excel in ethical domains. Our results highlight the value of making logic a first-class, parametric element in neuro-symbolic architectures for more robust, modular, and adaptable reasoning.