The Reasoning Error About Reasoning: Why Different Types of Reasoning Require Different Representational Structures

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.21736v1
• Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2026 09:25:19 GMT
• Title: The Reasoning Error About Reasoning: Why Different Types of Reasoning Require Different Representational Structures
• Abstract summary: Different types of reasoning impose different structural demands on representational systems.<n>No systematic account of these demands exists across psychology, AI, and philosophy of mind.<n>I propose a framework identifying four structural properties of representational systems.
• Score: 8.909115457491522
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Different types of reasoning impose different structural demands on representational systems, yet no systematic account of these demands exists across psychology, AI, and philosophy of mind. I propose a framework identifying four structural properties of representational systems: operability, consistency, structural preservation, and compositionality. These properties are demanded to different degrees by different forms of reasoning, from induction through analogy and causal inference to deduction and formal logic. Each property excludes a distinct class of reasoning failure. The analysis reveals a principal structural boundary: reasoning types below it can operate on associative, probabilistic representations, while those above it require all four properties to be fully satisfied. Scaling statistical learning without structural reorganization is insufficient to cross this boundary, because the structural guarantees required by deductive reasoning cannot be approximated through probabilistic means. Converging evidence from AI evaluation, developmental psychology, and cognitive neuroscience supports the framework at different levels of directness. Three testable predictions are derived, including compounding degradation, selective vulnerability to targeted structural disruption, and irreducibility under scaling. The framework is a necessary-condition account, agnostic about representational format, that aims to reorganize existing debates rather than close them.

Related papers

• Relational Structural Causal Models [52.818153111470394]
  We develop relational structural causal models, extending structural causal models to settings where objects and their relations vary.<n>We propose relational neural causal models, a provably correct approach that outperforms non-relational baselines on simulated traffic scenes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-12T18:54:06Z)
• Axiomatic Foundations of Counterfactual Explanations [5.285396202883409]
  Counterfactuals have emerged as one of the most compelling forms of explanation.<n>Most existing explainers focus on a single type of counterfactual and are restricted to local explanations.<n>This paper introduces an axiomatic framework built on a set of desirable properties for counterfactual explainers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-03T21:34:18Z)
• Schoenfeld's Anatomy of Mathematical Reasoning by Language Models [56.656180566692946]
  We adopt Schoenfeld's Episode Theory as an inductive, intermediate-scale lens and introduce ThinkARM (Anatomy of Reasoning in Models)<n>ThinkARM explicitly abstracts reasoning traces into functional reasoning steps such as Analysis, Explore, Implement, verify, etc.<n>We show that episode-level representations make reasoning steps explicit, enabling systematic analysis of how reasoning is structured, stabilized, and altered in modern language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-23T02:44:25Z)
• Reasoning is about giving reasons [55.56111618153049]
  We show that we can identify and extract the logical structure of natural language arguments in three popular reasoning datasets with high accuracies.<n>Our approach supports all forms of reasoning that depend on the logical structure of the natural language argument.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-20T07:26:53Z)
• Reasoning Systems as Structured Processes: Foundations, Failures, and Formal Criteria [1.2064681974642195]
  We model reasoning systems as structureds comprising phenomena, explanation space, inference and generation maps, and a principle base.<n>We survey basic internal criteria--including coherence, soundness, and completeness--and catalog typical failure modes such as contradiction, incompleteness, and non-convergence.<n>The goal of this work is to establish a foundational structure for representing and comparing reasoning systems, particularly in contexts where internal failure, adaptation, or fragmentation may arise.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-03T14:04:15Z)
• Canonical Representations of Markovian Structural Causal Models: A Framework for Counterfactual Reasoning [0.7106986689736826]
  Counterfactual reasoning aims at answering contrary-to-fact questions like Would have Alice recovered had she taken aspirin?''<n>We propose an alternative approach to structural causal models to represent counterfactuals compatible with a given causal graphical model.<n>We present a normalization procedure to disentangle the (arbitrary and unfalsifiable) counterfactual choice from the (typically testable) interventional constraints.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-22T09:13:02Z)
• The Theory of the Unique Latent Pattern: A Formal Epistemic Framework for Structural Singularity in Complex Systems [2.44755919161855]
  This paper introduces the Theory of the Unique Latent Pattern (ULP), a formal framework that redefines the origin of apparent complexity in dynamic systems.<n>Rather than attributing unpredictability to intrinsic randomness or emergent nonlinearity, ULP asserts that every analyzable system is governed by a structurally unique, deterministic generative mechanism.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-24T19:52:28Z)
• Hierarchical Invariance for Robust and Interpretable Vision Tasks at Larger Scales [54.78115855552886]
  We show how to construct over-complete invariants with a Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN)-like hierarchical architecture. With the over-completeness, discriminative features w.r.t. the task can be adaptively formed in a Neural Architecture Search (NAS)-like manner. For robust and interpretable vision tasks at larger scales, hierarchical invariant representation can be considered as an effective alternative to traditional CNN and invariants.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-23T16:50:07Z)
• A Semantic Approach to Decidability in Epistemic Planning (Extended Version) [72.77805489645604]
  We use a novel semantic approach to achieve decidability. Specifically, we augment the logic of knowledge S5$_n$ and with an interaction axiom called (knowledge) commutativity. We prove that our framework admits a finitary non-fixpoint characterization of common knowledge, which is of independent interest.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-28T11:26:26Z)
• MetaLogic: Logical Reasoning Explanations with Fine-Grained Structure [129.8481568648651]
  We propose a benchmark to investigate models' logical reasoning capabilities in complex real-life scenarios. Based on the multi-hop chain of reasoning, the explanation form includes three main components. We evaluate the current best models' performance on this new explanation form.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-22T16:01:13Z)
• Logical Neural Networks [51.46602187496816]
  We propose a novel framework seamlessly providing key properties of both neural nets (learning) and symbolic logic (knowledge and reasoning) Every neuron has a meaning as a component of a formula in a weighted real-valued logic, yielding a highly intepretable disentangled representation. Inference is omni rather than focused on predefined target variables, and corresponds to logical reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-23T16:55:45Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.