DeFAb: A Verifiable Benchmark for Defeasible Abduction in Foundation Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.18557v1
• Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2026 00:13:40 GMT
• Title: DeFAb: A Verifiable Benchmark for Defeasible Abduction in Foundation Models
• Abstract summary: A rule-based logic solver resolves every instance in our benchmark in under 50 microseconds with 100% accuracy.<n>We introduce DeFAb (Defeasible Abduction Benchmark), a dataset and generation pipeline.
• Score: 6.628401122676601
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: A rule-based logic solver resolves every instance in our benchmark in under 50 microseconds with 100% accuracy; the best frontier language model reaches 65% at best and drops to 23.5% under rendering-robust evaluation (worst case over four surface renderings). We introduce DeFAb (Defeasible Abduction Benchmark), a dataset and generation pipeline that converts four decades of publicly funded knowledge bases into formally grounded instances for defeasible abduction: constructing hypotheses that explain anomalies by overriding defaults while preserving unrelated expectations. Because every hypothesis must pass polynomial-time checks for valid derivation, conservativity, and minimality, DeFAb makes logical rigor the instrument for measuring creativity and theoretical reasoning, scoring the disciplined construction of theory revisions rather than fluent but theory-destroying prose. The pipeline pairs taxonomic hierarchies (OpenCyc, YAGO, Wikidata) with behavioral property graphs (ConceptNet, UMLS) to produce 372,648+ instances across 33.75M materialized rules from 18 sources, in three levels with polynomial-time verifiable gold standards. Four frontier models do not reliably internalize defeasible reasoning: rendering-robust Level 2 accuracy is 7.8-23.5%; chain-of-thought variance (~36 pp) exceeds any inter-model gap; and a matched contamination control isolates a +19.4 pp Level 3 gap. We further release DeFAb-Hard (a 235-instance Level 3 difficulty variant; best model 53.3% vs 100% symbolic) and CONJURE (a kernel-verified transformative-creativity variant of 560 Lean 4/Mathlib instances whose gold answers are definitions the proof kernel did not previously contain, judge-free verifier; a pilot finds zero novel concepts). The same verifier doubles as an exact reward for preference optimization (DPO, RLVR/GRPO). Released under MIT at https://huggingface.co/datasets/PatrickAllenCooper/DeFAb.

Related papers

• BeTaL-GBI: Admission-Aware Benchmark Tuning and Full-Stack Verification of Geometric Belief Interfaces [2.894286977279531]
  This study examines whether an enterprise verification architecture can isolate interface failure, task competence, policy admissibility, and control integrity while keeping claims auditable.<n>BeTaL-GBI v0.2 applies Benchmark Tuning with an LLM-in-the-loop over 2,218,750,380 grid points, separating format admission from conditional performance.<n>Across 512 synthetic tasks, a 16-gate policy detects all 116 injected severe contradictions and accepts all 99 clean records. Hallucinator and evidence-forger surrogates are blocked with zero silent promotions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-21T16:52:38Z)
• Confidently Wrong: Exception Chain Collapse in Frontier LLM Rule Evaluation [0.0]
  We document a failure class in frontier large language models.<n>The failure reproduces at first observation, but its empirical surface is unstable.<n>For regulated, frontier-model accuracy is a moving compliance boundary that shifts without notice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-25T22:40:02Z)
• YUKTI: From Natural-Language Situations to Robust, Verifiable Decisions An Uncertainty-Typed Proposition IR, Assumption-Robust Pareto Frontiers, and a Regret Certificate [0.0]
  We show that YUKTI routes each stage to an exact, nonlinear, or evolutionary solver.<n>We prove a bound making rho an exact factor of decision regret, add auditable traceability, and synthesize a benchmark-faithful data foundation.<n>We validate three ways: under controlled misspecification the robust compromise cuts mean and tail regret by over 90% versus a naive point plan; and on a regulated commercial decision we optimize inside a lawful action space and price the downside in euros.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-22T09:29:13Z)
• Automated Proving of Shannon-Type Entropy Inequalities via Fine-Tuned Language Models and Guided Tree Search [50.16356451328644]
  Proving Shannon-type entropy inequalities is a fundamental task in information theory.<n>We investigate whether small-scale large language models, fine-tuned on atomic proof steps, can automate this process.<n>We show that GPT-5.5 solves 1.7% samples under zero-shot prompting while Psitip solves 33.3% samples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-04T05:43:12Z)
• CEPO: RLVR Self-Distillation using Contrastive Evidence Policy Optimization [50.59956036193097]
  A model produces a correct solution under reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR)<n>Every token receives the same reward signal regardless of whether it was a decisive reasoning step or a grammatical filler.<n>We propose Contrastive Evidence Policy Optimization (CEPO)<n>CEPO asks a sharper question at every token: "does the correct answer favor this token?" but "does the correct answer favor it while the wrong answer disfavors it?"
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-19T06:46:19Z)
• PBT-Bench: Benchmarking AI Agents on Property-Based Testing [29.035258104995204]
  We introduce PBT-Bench, a benchmark of 100 curated property-based testing problems across 40 real Python libraries.<n>Each problem injects one or more semantic bugs (365 in total, mean 3.65 per problem) designed so that default-strategy random inputs almost never trigger them.<n>Bug recall under the PBT-guided prompt ranges from 42.1% to 83.4% across models; under the open-ended baseline, from 31.4% to 76.7%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-13T18:01:05Z)
• Durable Evaluation Framework: Adversarial Arbitration for Sycophancy Reduction in Large Language Models [0.0]
  This paper evaluates a prompt-based instantiation of Durable Evaluation Framework Arbitration.<n>DEF Arbitration mitigates identity-framed sycophancy by arbitrating between two models tuned to opposing DEFs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-21T10:30:25Z)
• The Verification Tax: Fundamental Limits of AI Auditing in the Rare-Error Regime [0.0]
  Most cited calibration result in deep learning -- post-temperature-scaling ECE of 0.012 on CIFAR-100 -- is below the statistical noise floor.<n>We prove this is not a failure of the experiment but a law: the minimax rate for estimating calibration error with model error rate epsilon is Theta((Lepsilon/m)2/3), and no estimator can beat it.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-14T16:48:24Z)
• LiveMathematicianBench: A Live Benchmark for Mathematician-Level Reasoning with Proof Sketches [61.30693283718321]
  We present LiveMathematicianBench, a dynamic multiple-choice benchmark for research-level mathematical reasoning.<n>By grounding evaluation in newly published theorems, it provides a realistic testbed beyond memorized patterns.<n>It employs a proof-sketchguided distractor pipeline that uses high-level proof strategies to construct plausible but invalid answer choices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-02T08:22:17Z)
• AlgoVeri: An Aligned Benchmark for Verified Code Generation on Classical Algorithms [54.99368693313797]
  Existing benchmarks test only individual languages/tools, so the performance numbers are not directly comparable.<n>We address this gap with AlgoVeri, a benchmark that evaluates vericoding of $77$ classical algorithms in Dafny, Verus, and Lean.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-10T06:58:26Z)
• ACAR: Adaptive Complexity Routing for Multi-Model Ensembles with Auditable Decision Traces [3.151184728006369]
  We present ACAR, a measurement framework for studying multi-model orchestration under auditable conditions.<n>ACAR uses self-consistency variance (sigma) computed from N=3 probe samples to route tasks across single-model, two-model, and three-model execution modes.<n>We evaluate ACAR on 1,510 tasks spanning four benchmarks, producing more than 7,550 auditable runs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-06T23:27:17Z)
• Exploring the Limit of Outcome Reward for Learning Mathematical Reasoning [65.2421542320293]
  Reasoning abilities are crucial components of general intelligence.<n>Recent advances by proprietary companies, such as o-series models of OpenAI, have made remarkable progress on reasoning tasks.<n>This paper proposes a new RL framework, termed OREAL, to pursue the performance limit that can be achieved through textbfOutcome textbfREwtextbfArd-based reinforcement textbfLearning for mathematical reasoning tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-10T18:57:29Z)
• PRover: Proof Generation for Interpretable Reasoning over Rules [81.40404921232192]
  We propose a transformer-based model that answers binary questions over rule-bases and generates the corresponding proofs. Our model learns to predict nodes and edges corresponding to proof graphs in an efficient constrained training paradigm. We conduct experiments on synthetic, hand-authored, and human-paraphrased rule-bases to show promising results for QA and proof generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-06T15:47:53Z)

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.