LAG: Logic-Augmented Generation from a Cartesian Perspective

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across a wide range of tasks, yet exhibit critical limitations in knowledge-intensive tasks, often generating hallucinations when faced with questions requiring specialized expertise. While retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) mitigates this by integrating external knowledge, it struggles with complex reasoning scenarios due to its reliance on direct semantic retrieval and lack of structured logical organization. Inspired by Cartesian principles from \textit{Discours de la m\'ethode}, this paper introduces Logic-Augmented Generation (LAG), a novel paradigm that reframes knowledge augmentation through systematic question decomposition and dependency-aware reasoning. Specifically, LAG first decomposes complex questions into atomic sub-questions ordered by logical dependencies. It then resolves these sequentially, using prior answers to guide context retrieval for subsequent sub-questions, ensuring stepwise grounding in logical chain. To prevent error propagation, LAG incorporates a logical termination mechanism that halts inference upon encountering unanswerable sub-questions and reduces wasted computation on excessive reasoning. Finally, it synthesizes all sub-resolutions to generate verified responses. Experiments on four benchmark datasets demonstrate that LAG significantly enhances reasoning robustness, reduces hallucination, and aligns LLM problem-solving with human cognition, offering a principled alternative to existing RAG systems.

Benchmarking Large Language Models via Random Variables

With the continuous advancement of large language models (LLMs) in mathematical reasoning, evaluating their performance in this domain has become a prominent research focus. Recent studies have raised concerns about the reliability of current mathematical benchmarks, highlighting issues such as simplistic design and potential data leakage. Therefore, creating a reliable benchmark that effectively evaluates the genuine capabilities of LLMs in mathematical reasoning remains a significant challenge. To address this, we propose RV-Bench, a framework for Benchmarking LLMs via Random Variables in mathematical reasoning. Specifically, the background content of a random variable question (RV question) mirrors the original problem in existing standard benchmarks, but the variable combinations are randomized into different values. LLMs must fully understand the problem-solving process for the original problem to correctly answer RV questions with various combinations of variable values. As a result, the LLM's genuine capability in mathematical reasoning is reflected by its accuracy on RV-Bench. Extensive experiments are conducted with 29 representative LLMs across 900+ RV questions. A leaderboard for RV-Bench ranks the genuine capability of these LLMs. Further analysis of accuracy dropping indicates that current LLMs still struggle with complex mathematical reasoning problems.