Position: Logical Soundness is not a Reliable Criterion for Neurosymbolic Fact-Checking with LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.04177v1
• Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2026 16:48:57 GMT
• Title: Position: Logical Soundness is not a Reliable Criterion for Neurosymbolic Fact-Checking with LLMs
• Abstract summary: Some neurosymbolic systems verify claims by using large language models (LLMs) to translate natural language into logical formulae.<n>We argue that such approaches structurally fail to detect misleading claims due to systematic divergences between conclusions that are logically sound and inferences that humans typically make and accept.
• Score: 6.916679603940271
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: As large language models (LLMs) are increasing integrated into fact-checking pipelines, formal logic is often proposed as a rigorous means by which to mitigate bias, errors and hallucinations in these models' outputs. For example, some neurosymbolic systems verify claims by using LLMs to translate natural language into logical formulae and then checking whether the proposed claims are logically sound, i.e. whether they can be validly derived from premises that are verified to be true. We argue that such approaches structurally fail to detect misleading claims due to systematic divergences between conclusions that are logically sound and inferences that humans typically make and accept. Drawing on studies in cognitive science and pragmatics, we present a typology of cases in which logically sound conclusions systematically elicit human inferences that are unsupported by the underlying premises. Consequently, we advocate for a complementary approach: leveraging the human-like reasoning tendencies of LLMs as a feature rather than a bug, and using these models to validate the outputs of formal components in neurosymbolic systems against potentially misleading conclusions.

Related papers

• ForEx: A Formal Verification Framework for Explainable Reasoning in Logical Fallacy Detection and Annotation [0.0]
  We propose ForEx, a framework that translates Large Language Models into Lean4.<n>ForEx verifies whether the translated rationale is derivable under encoded premises, not the logical validity of the original natural language argument.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-20T04:10:02Z)
• Uncertainty Reasoning with Large Language Models for Explainable Disease Diagnosis [12.157855328093055]
  Clinical decision-making requires reasoning over incomplete, imprecise, and linguistically expressed patient narratives.<n>We propose a neuro-symbolic reasoning framework that aligns large language models with formal logic.<n>Results show performance comparable to state-of-the-art LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-25T08:18:45Z)
• Pushing the Boundaries of Natural Reasoning: Interleaved Bonus from Formal-Logic Verification [49.506412445511934]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) show remarkable capabilities, yet their next-token prediction creates logical inconsistencies and reward hacking.<n>We introduce a formal logic verification-guided framework that dynamically interleaves formal symbolic verification with the natural language generation process.<n>We operationalize this framework via a novel two-stage training pipeline that synergizes formal logic verification-guided supervised fine-tuning and policy optimization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-30T07:01:25Z)
• Addressing Logical Fallacies In Scientific Reasoning From Large Language Models: Towards a Dual-Inference Training Framework [0.13854111346209866]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have transformed natural language processing and hold growing promise for advancing science, healthcare, and decision-making.<n>This paper makes two contributions. First, it demonstrates how existing LLMs from major platforms exhibit systematic weaknesses when reasoning in scientific domains with negation, counterexamples, or faulty premises.<n>Second, it introduces a dual-reasoning training framework that integrates affirmative generation with structured counterfactual denial.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-03T19:50:39Z)
• Are Language Models Efficient Reasoners? A Perspective from Logic Programming [109.47572890883248]
  Modern language models (LMs) exhibit strong deductive reasoning capabilities, yet standard evaluations emphasize correctness while overlooking a key aspect of human-like reasoning: efficiency.<n>We propose a framework for assessing LM reasoning efficiency through the lens of logic programming.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-29T15:30:31Z)
• DivLogicEval: A Framework for Benchmarking Logical Reasoning Evaluation in Large Language Models [58.439517684779936]
  This paper proposes a new classical logic benchmark DivLogicEval, consisting of natural sentences composed of diverse statements in a counterintuitive way.<n>To ensure a more reliable evaluation, we also introduce a new evaluation metric that mitigates the influence of bias and randomness inherent in Large Language Models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-19T04:40:46Z)
• Sound and Complete Neurosymbolic Reasoning with LLM-Grounded Interpretations [7.81820080453498]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in natural language understanding and generation.<n>We present a method for directly integrating an LLM into the interpretation function of the formal semantics for a paraconsistent logic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-13T19:05:43Z)
• CLATTER: Comprehensive Entailment Reasoning for Hallucination Detection [60.98964268961243]
  We propose that guiding models to perform a systematic and comprehensive reasoning process allows models to execute much finer-grained and accurate entailment decisions.<n>We define a 3-step reasoning process, consisting of (i) claim decomposition, (ii) sub-claim attribution and entailment classification, and (iii) aggregated classification, showing that such guided reasoning indeed yields improved hallucination detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-05T17:02:52Z)
• Enhancing Large Language Models through Neuro-Symbolic Integration and Ontological Reasoning [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate impressive capabilities in natural language processing but suffer from inaccuracies and logical inconsistencies known as hallucinations.<n>We propose a neuro-symbolic approach integrating symbolic ontological reasoning and machine learning methods to enhance the consistency and reliability of LLM outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-10T10:39:24Z)
• JustLogic: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating Deductive Reasoning in Large Language Models [51.99046112135311]
  We introduce JustLogic, a synthetically generated deductive reasoning benchmark for rigorous evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>JustLogic is highly complex, capable of generating a diverse range of linguistic patterns, vocabulary, and argument structures.<n>Our experimental results reveal that (i) state-of-the-art (SOTA) reasoning LLMs perform on par or better than the human average but significantly worse than the human ceiling.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-24T15:49:10Z)
• Towards Logically Sound Natural Language Reasoning with Logic-Enhanced Language Model Agents [3.5083201638203154]
  Logic-Enhanced Language Model Agents (LELMA) is a framework that integrates large language models with formal logic.<n>LeLMA employs autoformalization to translate reasoning into logic representations, which are then used to assess logical validity.<n>LeLMA achieves high accuracy in error detection and improves reasoning correctness via self-refinement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-28T18:25:35Z)
• A Closer Look at the Self-Verification Abilities of Large Language Models in Logical Reasoning [73.77088902676306]
  We take a closer look at the self-verification abilities of large language models (LLMs) in the context of logical reasoning. Our main findings suggest that existing LLMs could struggle to identify fallacious reasoning steps accurately and may fall short of guaranteeing the validity of self-verification methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T07:13:10Z)

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.