PragReST: Self-Reinforcing Counterfactual Reasoning for Pragmatic Language Understanding

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.18624v1
• Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2026 02:41:25 GMT
• Title: PragReST: Self-Reinforcing Counterfactual Reasoning for Pragmatic Language Understanding
• Abstract summary: PragReST is a self-supervised framework that constructs pragmatic QA data.<n>It generates counterfactual reasoning traces and trains models to internalize them.
• Score: 20.011014649243673
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Natural language understanding often depends on meanings that are implied rather than explicitly stated, requiring pragmatic reasoning. Despite strong performance on math and logical reasoning, large language models (LLMs) still struggle with making pragmatic inferences, often choosing literal interpretations. To improve LLM pragmatic reasoning, we introduce PragReST, a self-supervised framework that constructs pragmatic QA data, generates counterfactual reasoning traces, and trains models to internalize them through supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning, without human-labeled training data or distillation from a stronger teacher. Across four pragmatic benchmarks (PragMega, Ludwig, MetoQA, and AltPrag), PragReST improves over backbone models, task-specific pragmatic tuning baselines, and non-counterfactual variants of the same pipeline. On accuracy-based benchmarks, PragReST improves over the instruct backbone by 5.37 and 5.50% (absolute) for Qwen3-8B and Qwen3-14B, respectively. Our error analysis and ablations underscore the importance of counterfactual reasoning: PragReST primarily reduces errors caused by failures to contrast observed utterances with plausible alternatives, and removing counterfactual reasoning substantially reduces performance. Moreover, our training preserves out-of-domain performance on general-knowledge and mathematical reasoning benchmarks.

Related papers

• LLM Reasoning Predicts When Models Are Right: Evidence from Coding Classroom Discourse [0.18268488712787334]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed to automatically label and analyze educational dialogue at scale.<n>We investigate whether reasoning generated by LLMs can be used to predict the correctness of a model's own predictions.<n>We analyze 30,300 teacher utterances from classroom dialogue, each labeled by multiple state-of-the-art LLMs with an instructional move construct and an accompanying reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-10T14:38:13Z)
• Beyond Correctness: Learning Robust Reasoning via Transfer [51.403609251508904]
  We adopt a simple philosophical view, robust reasoning should remain useful beyond the mind that produced it.<n>We introduce Reinforcement Learning with Transferable Reward, which operationalizes robustness via transfer reward.<n>Our approach improves sampling consistency while improving final answer accuracy, and it reaches comparable performance in substantially fewer training steps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-09T10:41:44Z)
• Structured Reasoning for Large Language Models [59.215789462977206]
  We propose Structured Reasoning (SCR), a framework that decouples reasoning trajectories into explicit, evaluable, and trainable components.<n>SCR substantially improves reasoning efficiency and self-verification.<n>Compared with existing reasoning paradigms, it reduces output token length by up to 50%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-12T04:04:01Z)
• Training LLMs with LogicReward for Faithful and Rigorous Reasoning [75.30425553246177]
  We propose LogicReward, a reward system that guides model training by enforcing step-level logical correctness with a theorem prover.<n>An 8B model trained on data constructed with LogicReward surpasses GPT-4o and o4-mini by 11.6% and 2% on natural language inference and logical reasoning tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-20T03:43:02Z)
• 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)
• Executable Counterfactuals: Improving LLMs' Causal Reasoning Through Code [29.382261465478248]
  We introduce executable counterfactuals, a framework that operationalizes causal reasoning through code and math problems.<n>Our results reveal substantial drop in accuracy (25-40%) from interventional to counterfactual reasoning for SOTA models like o4-mini and Claude-4-Sonnet.<n>We also test whether a model trained on code would generalize to counterfactual math word problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-02T00:26:35Z)
• Do LLMs Overthink Basic Math Reasoning? Benchmarking the Accuracy-Efficiency Tradeoff in Language Models [6.312798900093575]
  Large language models (LLMs) achieve impressive performance on complex mathematical benchmarks yet sometimes fail on basic math reasoning.<n>This paper focuses on the fundamental tradeoff between accuracy and overthinking.<n>We introduce the Overthinking Score, a harmonic-mean metric combining accuracy and token-efficiency for holistic model evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-05T12:31:17Z)
• Understand the Implication: Learning to Think for Pragmatic Understanding [34.34828731466766]
  Pragmatics is the ability to infer meaning beyond literal interpretation.<n>Existing methods rely on annotated labels but overlook the reasoning process humans naturally use to interpret implicit meaning.<n>We introduce a novel pragmatic dataset, ImpliedPreference, that includes explicit reasoning (thoughts) for both correct and incorrect interpretations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-16T14:45:08Z)
• Dissecting Logical Reasoning in LLMs: A Fine-Grained Evaluation and Supervision Study [40.143148197878354]
  We introduce FineLogic, a fine-grained evaluation framework that assesses logical reasoning across three dimensions.<n>We study how different supervision formats in fine-tuning shape reasoning abilities.<n>We find a key trade-off: natural language supervision excels at generalization, whereas symbolic supervision is superior at instilling structurally sound, atomic reasoning steps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-05T09:34:12Z)
• Sketch-of-Thought: Efficient LLM Reasoning with Adaptive Cognitive-Inspired Sketching [64.74765550805024]
  Chain-of-Thought prompting elicits step-by-step problem solving, but often at the cost of excessive verbosity in intermediate outputs.<n>We propose Sketch-of-Thought (SoT), a prompting framework that integrates cognitively inspired reasoning paradigms with linguistic constraints.<n>SoT achieves token reductions of up to 84% with minimal accuracy loss across 18 reasoning datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-07T06:57:17Z)
• Improve Vision Language Model Chain-of-thought Reasoning [86.83335752119741]
  Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning in vision language models (VLMs) is crucial for improving interpretability and trustworthiness. We show that training VLM on short answers does not generalize well to reasoning tasks that require more detailed responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-21T17:00:06Z)
• LogicAsker: Evaluating and Improving the Logical Reasoning Ability of Large Language Models [63.14196038655506]
  We introduce LogicAsker, a novel approach for evaluating and enhancing the logical reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) Our methodology reveals significant gaps in LLMs' learning of logical rules, with identified reasoning failures ranging from 29% to 90% across different models. We leverage these findings to construct targeted demonstration examples and fine-tune data, notably enhancing logical reasoning in models like GPT-4o by up to 5%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-01T13:53:53Z)
• REFINER: Reasoning Feedback on Intermediate Representations [47.36251998678097]
  We introduce REFINER, a framework for finetuning language models to generate intermediate inferences. REFINER works by interacting with a critic model that provides automated feedback on the reasoning. Empirical evaluations show significant improvements over baseline LMs of comparable scale.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-04T15:57:28Z)

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.