Knowledge Vector of Logical Reasoning in Large Language Models

Logical reasoning serve as a central capability in LLMs and includes three main forms: deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning. In this work, we study the knowledge representations of these reasoning types in LLMs and analyze the correlations among them. Our analysis shows that each form of logical reasoning can be captured as a reasoning-specific knowledge vector in a linear representation space, yet these vectors are largely independent of each other. Motivated by cognitive science theory that these subforms of logical reasoning interact closely in the human brain, as well as our observation that the reasoning process for one type can benefit from the reasoning chain produced by another, we further propose to refine the knowledge representations of each reasoning type in LLMs to encourage complementarity between them. To this end, we design a complementary subspace-constrained refinement framework, which introduces a complementary loss that enables each reasoning vector to leverage auxiliary knowledge from the others, and a subspace constraint loss that prevents erasure of their unique characteristics. Through steering experiments along reasoning vectors, we find that refined vectors incorporating complementary knowledge yield consistent performance gains. We also conduct a mechanism-interpretability analysis of each reasoning vector, revealing insights into the shared and specific features of different reasoning in LLMs.

Where Reasoning Breaks: Logic-Aware Path Selection by Controlling Logical Connectives in LLMs Reasoning Chains

While LLMs demonstrate impressive reasoning capabilities, they remain fragile in multi-step logical deduction, where a single transition error can propagate through the entire reasoning chain, leading to unstable performance. In this work, we identify logical connectives as primary points of this structural fragility. Through empirical analysis, we show that connective tokens function as high entropy forking points, at which models frequently struggle to determine the correct logical direction. Motivated by this observation, we hypothesize that intervening in logical connective selection can guide LLMs toward more correct logical direction, thereby improving the overall reasoning chain. To validate this hypothesis, we propose a multi-layered framework that intervenes specifically at these logic-critical junctions in the reasoning process. Our framework includes (1) Gradient-based Logical Steering to guide LLMs internal representations towards valid reasoning subspaces, (2) Localized Branching to resolve ambiguity via targeted look-ahead search, and (3) Targeted Transition Preference Optimization, a surgical reinforcement learning objective that selectively optimizes single-token preferences at logical pivots. Crucially, by concentrating intervention solely on logic-critical transitions, our framework achieves a favorable accuracy--efficiency trade-off compared to global inference time scaling methods like beam search and self-consistency.

Discovering a Shared Logical Subspace: Steering LLM Logical Reasoning via Alignment of Natural-Language and Symbolic Views

Large Language Models (LLMs) still struggle with multi-step logical reasoning. Existing approaches either purely refine the reasoning chain in natural language form or attach a symbolic solver as an external module. In this work, we instead ask whether LLMs contain a shared internal logical subspace that simultaneously aligns natural-language and symbolic-language views of the reasoning process. Our hypothesis is that this logical subspace captures logical reasoning capabilities in LLMs that are shared across views while remaining independent of surface forms. To verify this, we employ Canonical Correlation Analysis on the paired residual activations from natural-language and symbolic-language reasoning chains, learning a low-dimensional subspace with maximum cross-view correlation. Furthermore, we design a training-free approach that steers LLMs reasoning chain along this logical subspace, thereby leveraging the complementary reasoning signals from both views. Experiments on four logical reasoning benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach, improving accuracy by up to 11 percentage points and generalizing well on out-of-domain problems.

Multi-document Summarization through Multi-document Event Relation Graph Reasoning in LLMs: a case study in Framing Bias Mitigation

Media outlets are becoming more partisan and polarized nowadays. Most previous work focused on detecting media bias. In this paper, we aim to mitigate media bias by generating a neutralized summary given multiple articles presenting different ideological views. Motivated by the critical role of events and event relations in media bias detection, we propose to increase awareness of bias in LLMs via multi-document events reasoning and use a multi-document event relation graph to guide the summarization process. This graph contains rich event information useful to reveal bias: four common types of in-doc event relations to reflect content framing bias, cross-doc event coreference relation to reveal content selection bias, and event-level moral opinions to highlight opinionated framing bias. We further develop two strategies to incorporate the multi-document event relation graph for neutralized summarization. Firstly, we convert a graph into natural language descriptions and feed the textualized graph into LLMs as a part of a hard text prompt. Secondly, we encode the graph with graph attention network and insert the graph embedding into LLMs as a soft prompt. Both automatic evaluation and human evaluation confirm that our approach effectively mitigates both lexical and informational media bias, and meanwhile improves content preservation.

Towards a Comprehensive Benchmark for Pathological Lymph Node Metastasis in Breast Cancer Sections

Advances in optical microscopy scanning have significantly contributed to computational pathology (CPath) by converting traditional histopathological slides into whole slide images (WSIs). This development enables comprehensive digital reviews by pathologists and accelerates AI-driven diagnostic support for WSI analysis. Recent advances in foundational pathology models have increased the need for benchmarking tasks. The Camelyon series is one of the most widely used open-source datasets in computational pathology. However, the quality, accessibility, and clinical relevance of the labels have not been comprehensively evaluated. In this study, we reprocessed 1,399 WSIs and labels from the Camelyon-16 and Camelyon-17 datasets, removing low-quality slides, correcting erroneous labels, and providing expert pixel annotations for tumor regions in the previously unreleased test set. Based on the sizes of re-annotated tumor regions, we upgraded the binary cancer screening task to a four-class task: negative, micro-metastasis, macro-metastasis, and Isolated Tumor Cells (ITC). We reevaluated pre-trained pathology feature extractors and multiple instance learning (MIL) methods using the cleaned dataset, providing a benchmark that advances AI development in histopathology.

Boosting Logical Fallacy Reasoning in LLMs via Logical Structure Tree

Logical fallacy uses invalid or faulty reasoning in the construction of a statement. Despite the prevalence and harmfulness of logical fallacies, detecting and classifying logical fallacies still remains a challenging task. We observe that logical fallacies often use connective words to indicate an intended logical relation between two arguments, while the argument semantics does not actually support the logical relation. Inspired by this observation, we propose to build a logical structure tree to explicitly represent and track the hierarchical logic flow among relation connectives and their arguments in a statement. Specifically, this logical structure tree is constructed in an unsupervised manner guided by the constituency tree and a taxonomy of connectives for ten common logical relations, with relation connectives as non-terminal nodes and textual arguments as terminal nodes, and the latter are mostly elementary discourse units. We further develop two strategies to incorporate the logical structure tree into LLMs for fallacy reasoning. Firstly, we transform the tree into natural language descriptions and feed the textualized tree into LLMs as a part of the hard text prompt. Secondly, we derive a relation-aware tree embedding and insert the tree embedding into LLMs as a soft prompt. Experiments on benchmark datasets demonstrate that our approach based on logical structure tree significantly improves precision and recall for both fallacy detection and fallacy classification.

Evaluating Gender Bias of LLMs in Making Morality Judgements

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable capabilities in a multitude of Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks. However, these models are still not immune to limitations such as social biases, especially gender bias. This work investigates whether current closed and open-source LLMs possess gender bias, especially when asked to give moral opinions. To evaluate these models, we curate and introduce a new dataset GenMO (Gender-bias in Morality Opinions) comprising parallel short stories featuring male and female characters respectively. Specifically, we test models from the GPT family (GPT-3.5-turbo, GPT-3.5-turbo-instruct, GPT-4-turbo), Llama 3 and 3.1 families (8B/70B), Mistral-7B and Claude 3 families (Sonnet and Opus). Surprisingly, despite employing safety checks, all production-standard models we tested display significant gender bias with GPT-3.5-turbo giving biased opinions in 24% of the samples. Additionally, all models consistently favour female characters, with GPT showing bias in 68-85% of cases and Llama 3 in around 81-85% instances. Additionally, our study investigates the impact of model parameters on gender bias and explores real-world situations where LLMs reveal biases in moral decision-making.

Polarity Calibration for Opinion Summarization

Opinion summarization is automatically generating summaries from a variety of subjective information, such as product reviews or political opinions. The challenge of opinions summarization lies in presenting divergent or even conflicting opinions. We conduct an analysis of previous summarization models, which reveals their inclination to amplify the polarity bias, emphasizing the majority opinions while ignoring the minority opinions. To address this issue and make the summarizer express both sides of opinions, we introduce the concept of polarity calibration, which aims to align the polarity of output summary with that of input text. Specifically, we develop a reinforcement training approach for polarity calibration. This approach feeds the polarity distance between output summary and input text as reward into the summarizer, and also balance polarity calibration with content preservation and language naturality. We evaluate our Polarity Calibration model (PoCa) on two types of opinions summarization tasks: summarizing product reviews and political opinions articles. Automatic and human evaluation demonstrate that our approach can mitigate the polarity mismatch between output summary and input text, as well as maintain the content semantic and language quality.

EMONA: Event-level Moral Opinions in News Articles

Most previous research on moral frames has focused on social media short texts, little work has explored moral sentiment within news articles. In news articles, authors often express their opinions or political stance through moral judgment towards events, specifically whether the event is right or wrong according to social moral rules. This paper initiates a new task to understand moral opinions towards events in news articles. We have created a new dataset, EMONA, and annotated event-level moral opinions in news articles. This dataset consists of 400 news articles containing over 10k sentences and 45k events, among which 9,613 events received moral foundation labels. Extracting event morality is a challenging task, as moral judgment towards events can be very implicit. Baseline models were built for event moral identification and classification. In addition, we also conduct extrinsic evaluations to integrate event-level moral opinions into three downstream tasks. The statistical analysis and experiments show that moral opinions of events can serve as informative features for identifying ideological bias or subjective events.

Sentence-level Media Bias Analysis with Event Relation Graph

Media outlets are becoming more partisan and polarized nowadays. In this paper, we identify media bias at the sentence level, and pinpoint bias sentences that intend to sway readers' opinions. As bias sentences are often expressed in a neutral and factual way, considering broader context outside a sentence can help reveal the bias. In particular, we observe that events in a bias sentence need to be understood in associations with other events in the document. Therefore, we propose to construct an event relation graph to explicitly reason about event-event relations for sentence-level bias identification. The designed event relation graph consists of events as nodes and four common types of event relations: coreference, temporal, causal, and subevent relations. Then, we incorporate event relation graph for bias sentences identification in two steps: an event-aware language model is built to inject the events and event relations knowledge into the basic language model via soft labels; further, a relation-aware graph attention network is designed to update sentence embedding with events and event relations information based on hard labels. Experiments on two benchmark datasets demonstrate that our approach with the aid of event relation graph improves both precision and recall of bias sentence identification.