Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

ProtoReasoning: Prototypes as the Foundation for Generalizable Reasoning in LLMs

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that training LLMs on Prolog and PDDL prototypes—not natural language—is what makes reasoning transfer across domains.

desk verdict A useful verified-symbolic-data recipe undercut by an overclaim: the paper's own matched ablation shows natural-language training beats prototype training, so the abstract's claim of enhanced generalization fails. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.15211 v1 pith:BJW6JYFI submitted 2025-06-18 cs.CL

Feng He , Zijun Chen , Xinnian Liang , Tingting Ma , Yunqi Qiu , Shuangzhi Wu , Junchi Yan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords reasoningprototypescross-domaingeneralizationPrologPDDLverifiablerewardssupervisedfine-tuninglogicalplanning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes that cross-domain generalization in large reasoning models comes from shared abstract reasoning prototypes, which are common logical and planning skeletons hidden under different surface representations. It introduces ProtoReasoning, a framework that converts natural-language logic problems into Prolog and planning problems into PDDL, verifies answers with interpreters, and fine-tunes a large Mixture-of-Experts model on these formal problems. The authors report gains over the baseline on logical reasoning, planning, MMLU, and AIME24, and argue that training in prototype space transfers to structurally similar natural-language problems about as well as training on natural language itself. The intended contribution is a mechanism-level account of why long-chain-of-thought reasoning transfers across domains, together with a scalable data pipeline that requires no human-annotated answers.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the pair of prototype representations paired with verifiers. Prolog encodes logical relations as facts and rules resolved by unification and backtracking; PDDL separates domain types, predicates, and action schemas from problem objects, initial state, and goal, with plans validated by the VAL checker or solved optimally using FastDownward. A four-stage constructor pipeline uses an LLM to transform natural-language problems into these formalisms, evolves them for complexity, and derives ground-truth answers by running the interpreter. The verification system standardizes outputs as JSON for Prolog and as VAL-checked plans for PDDL, enabling the pipeline to synthesize arbitrary numbers of correct training examples without human-annotated answers. A three-phase training recipe—teacher distillation, difficulty stratification via rejection sampling, and quality filtration—turns the verified examples into a supervised fine-tuning set for a sparse 150B-parameter MoE model with 15B activated parameters.

What would settle it

Sample a random set of the reported 4,196 Prolog and 2,424 PDDL training instances, have independent human experts translate each formal encoding back into natural language, and measure whether the reconstructed problems match the original source problems; if a substantial fraction mismatch, or if retraining on human-corrected encodings changes benchmark scores, the claim that prototype training teaches the original reasoning structure is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that reasoning prototypes—canonical formal structures such as Prolog programs for logical puzzles and PDDL specifications for planning—are the foundation of generalizable reasoning in large language models. Learning to solve problems encoded in these prototypes, with interpreter-verified answers, is said to teach the model the underlying reasoning pattern rather than a surface format. The authors support this by showing that adding prototype-representation training to a standard supervised fine-tuning dataset improves performance on logic, planning, general knowledge, and mathematics benchmarks, and by ablation results in which the Prolog-trained model reaches transfer performance close to, though not above, a natural-language-trained model on matched problems. The paper frames this as evidence that the prototype captures the reasoning essence, making the representation unimportant once the structure is learned.

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument rests on the assumption that the automated LLM transformation from natural-language problems into Prolog and PDDL preserves the original problem's meaning exactly, so that an interpreter-verified answer to the formalized version is also the correct answer to the original problem; if the transformation is systematically lossy or simplifying, the model is being trained on different problems than the ones used for evaluation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If prototypes are the basis of transfer, then reasoning training data can be generated synthetically in formal languages at arbitrary scale, since correctness is guaranteed by interpreters rather than human labels.
  • Reasoning skills learned in Prolog and PDDL should transfer to any natural-language task sharing the same underlying structure, implying that benchmark gains on Enigmata-Eval, MMLU, and AIME24 are instances of a general mechanism rather than isolated improvements.
  • The three PDDL task types—generation, completion, and reordering—decompose planning into component abilities, so prototype training could target specific planning sub-skills in a model.
  • Because the framework needs no problem-answer pairs, data construction cost shifts from annotation to prompt engineering and verification, which could scale to other formalizable domains.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the automated formalization step is lossy, the model may be learning to solve Prolog and PDDL reformulations rather than the original natural-language problems; a direct test is to compare transfer after human-corrected formalizations against the automated ones.
  • The paper's own Table 4 shows natural-language training outperforming Prolog training on both the matched transfer set and the development set, so the current evidence supports a weaker claim: prototype training is a data-efficient approximation of natural-language training, not clearly superior to it.
  • The prototype lens suggests a concrete research program: define reasoning prototypes formally, for instance as equivalence classes of problem structures under representation-preserving transformations, and measure transfer as a function of structural distance between prototype spaces.
  • Since verification is decoupled from language, the framework could extend to other verifiable formalisms such as constraint solvers or theorem provers, and to reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards where interpreter feedback replaces hand-written answer keys.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes ProtoReasoning, a framework for improving LLM reasoning by converting natural-language logic and planning problems into formal prototype representations (Prolog for logic, PDDL for planning), deriving ground-truth answers with interpreters, generating additional problems through prompt-based evolution, and supervised fine-tuning a 15B-active-parameter MoE model on the resulting data. The main experiments report gains on Enigmata-Eval (+4.7 percentage points), internal planning and Nexus-Hard evaluations (+6.3 and +6.4 points), MMLU (+4.0), and AIME24 (+1.0). The paper's central scientific claim is that training in prototype space improves generalization to structurally similar natural-language problems relative to training on natural-language versions of the same problems, based on a matched 453-sample ablation. The results in Table 4 do not support that claim: natural-language training outperforms Prolog training on both the transfer set (58.1 vs 54.2) and the development set (45.0 vs 44.1), and the Section 3.3 text itself describes the result as 'comparable' rather than superior.

Significance. If the hypothesis were established, the framework's ability to synthesize and verify reasoning data at scale would be a useful contribution to reasoning-model training. The paper has genuine strengths: interpreter-based verification is a principled way to obtain correct labels, the three PDDL task formulations (generation, completion, reordering) are sensible, and the matched ablation design is the right experimental shape for isolating representation format. However, the evidence as presented is insufficient: the signature ablation contradicts the headline claim, benchmark exclusions are post hoc, no uncertainty quantification is reported, and the internal evaluation sets are not described. The conceptual contribution ('reasoning prototypes') is asserted rather than formally defined, and Section 5 itself concedes this lack of formal rigor. As a result, the paper does not currently validate its claimed mechanism.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and §3.3, Table 4] The abstract and Introduction state that the ablation confirms 'enhanced generalization' to structurally similar problems compared with natural-language training, but Table 4 shows the opposite: +NL scores 58.1 on the transfer set and 45.0 on the development set, while +Prolog scores 54.2 and 44.1. The Section 3.3 text softens this to 'comparable', yet the abstract and contributions still claim superiority. This is a direct contradiction in the central evidence, and the hypothesis-validation conclusion is unsupported as written. The authors must either provide a corrected statistical analysis that supports the comparative claim or explicitly withdraw it.
  2. [§3.1, Enigmata-Eval evaluation] Four Enigmata-Eval categories (Campsite, Car Painting, Star Battle, and Sum Skyscraper) are excluded post hoc with the justification that baseline models struggled primarily with instruction following. This exclusion changes the reported headline gain and is not part of the benchmark's standard protocol. The paper should report results both with and without the excluded categories, and it should explain why instruction-following failures are not relevant to the logical-reasoning abilities the paper claims to improve.
  3. [§3.1 and §3.3, Tables 2-5] The paper reports no error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests for any of the differences, despite stating that each sample was evaluated three times (ten times for AIME24). The key ablation difference (58.1 vs 54.2) is in the opposite direction from the claimed effect, and the category-level comparisons in Table 5 involve very small samples (for example, n=4 for the Sequential transfer set and n=32 for the Logic transfer set). Without uncertainty quantification, the claim that prototypes produce comparable or superior generalization is not established.
  4. [§2.2.1 and §2.3.1] The prototype constructor relies on LLM prompt engineering to transform natural-language problems into Prolog and PDDL, but the paper provides no verification that the formalization is semantically faithful to the original problem, no error analysis of the transformation step, and no discussion of cases where the LLM simplified or altered the reasoning structure. Since the training labels are interpreter-verified for the formalized problem rather than the original problem, a systematic transformation error would mean the model is trained on a different task than the evaluation benchmark. The authors should include a transformation-fidelity audit on at least a representative sample.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Table 2] The abstract reports '+4.7%' and '+6.3%' but Table 2 displays absolute percentage-point increases; please use consistent terminology to avoid ambiguity.
  2. [Equation (1)] Equation (1) has a dangling formatting artifact ('DProlog = {⟨QProlog,A⟩ i ,') and should be typeset cleanly.
  3. [§3.1] The internal evaluation sets described as 'the Seed Project testing set' and 'Nexus-Hard' are not characterized in terms of size, sampling procedure, or prompt format, which prevents external verification of the reported results.
  4. [§3.1] The baseline dataset is described as 100K samples 'from the Seed Project' without a citation or public identifier; please name the exact dataset or provide a reference.
  5. [§5] Section 5 acknowledges that the precise definition of 'reasoning prototypes' lacks formal rigor and that the underlying mechanism requires deeper investigation; this limitation should be reflected in the abstract and contributions rather than appearing only in the closing paragraph.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No construction-level circularity found; the paper's central generalization claim is contradicted by its own Table 4, but that is an internal-evidence problem, not a definitional or self-citation reduction.

full rationale

No construction-level circularity is present. The paper's hypothesis is not encoded into its evaluation: Prolog/PDDL are not defined as 'whatever improves transfer,' interpreter-verified answers are not the benchmark scores, and no parameter is fitted to Enigmata-Eval, MMLU, or AIME24 and then renamed a prediction. The ablation in Section 3.3 is an independent matched comparison, and the fact that it contradicts the abstract's 'enhanced generalization' claim (+NL 58.1 vs +Prolog 54.2 on the transfer set; +NL 45.0 vs +Prolog 44.1 on the development set in Table 4) is a failure of evidence, not a circular reduction: the evaluated quantities are not equal to the training targets by construction. The authors even soften the claim in the Section 3.3 prose to 'comparable performance' between the Prolog and natural-language conditions. The main definitional weakness is conceded in Section 5 ('the precise definition of "reasoning prototypes" lacks formal rigor'), but a vague construct is not the same as an input-output tautology. Self-citations to Seed-Thinking-v1.5 and the use of Seed/Nexus-Hard internal benchmarks are contextual or benchmark references and are not load-bearing for the central derivation. Under the stated circularity criteria, the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that LLM-generated formalizations are faithful to the original problems, on the choice of Prolog/PDDL as 'prototypes', and on several hand-selected thresholds and exclusions in the data pipeline. These are not independent inputs: they are introduced by the authors to make the framework work, and the paper supplies no external evidence that the prototype format, rather than added data volume, causes the gains.

free parameters (4)
  • Excluded Enigmata-Eval datasets = Campsite, Car Painting, Star Battle, Sum Skyscraper
    Removed post hoc from evaluation in Section 3.1, directly changing the headline +4.7% Enigmata gain.
  • Difficulty stratification pass-rate thresholds = 0, 0.3, 0.6, 0.7, 1.0 boundaries
    Equation (3) in Section 2.4 uses these hand-chosen thresholds to filter challenging/intermediate/elementary examples, determining the final 4,196 Prolog and 2,424 PDDL training items.
  • Rejection sampling count = 10 evaluations per instance
    Section 2.4 fixes 10 repeated evaluations per instance for pass-rate estimation, a choice that affects which examples are retained.
  • Matched ablation corpus size = 453 samples
    Section 3.3 restricts the controlled Prolog-vs-NL comparison to 453 matched Enigmata examples, limiting statistical power and category-level conclusions.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Cross-domain generalization in LLMs arises from shared abstract reasoning prototypes
    Stated in the Introduction as the hypothesis being validated; the authors concede in the Conclusion that the definition 'lacks formal rigor'.
  • domain assumption Prolog and PDDL faithfully capture the reasoning structure of logic and planning problems
    Sections 2.2 and 2.3 assert that these languages preserve the 'reasoning structure' and align with human cognition; no formal mapping or empirical validation of this correspondence is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper LLM-based transformation of NL problems into Prolog/PDDL preserves the original problem semantics
    Section 2.2.1 uses prompt engineering without checking whether the formalized problem matches the original NL intent; interpreter verification only checks internal consistency of the formal artifact.
  • domain assumption Interpreter outputs (SWI-Prolog, VAL, FastDownward) are correct answers to the original NL problems
    Sections 2.2.2 and 2.3.2 treat interpreter results as ground truth for the NL problems, which is valid only if the prior formalization step is faithful.
  • domain assumption The Seed Project 100K-sample dataset is a valid baseline control
    The baseline and ProtoReasoning differ in both data content and data volume; the only matched control is the small Enigmata ablation in Section 3.3.
invented entities (1)
  • Reasoning prototypes
    purpose: Postulated abstract reasoning patterns claimed to underlie cross-domain generalization and to justify training on Prolog/PDDL representations
    The paper provides no formal definition or independent falsifiable handle; the only support is the method's performance, which is also explainable by added data volume and CoT distillation, and the controlled comparison does not favor the prototype representation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ProtoReasoning: Prototypes as the Foundation for Generalizable Reasoning in LLMs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BJW6JYFI

@misc{pith2026250615211,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ProtoReasoning: Prototypes as the Foundation for Generalizable Reasoning in LLMs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BJW6JYFI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.15211}
}
read the original abstract

Recent advances in Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) trained with Long Chain-of-Thought (Long CoT) reasoning have demonstrated remarkable cross-domain generalization capabilities. However, the underlying mechanisms supporting such transfer remain poorly understood. We hypothesize that cross-domain generalization arises from shared abstract reasoning prototypes -- fundamental reasoning patterns that capture the essence of problems across domains. These prototypes minimize the nuances of the representation, revealing that seemingly diverse tasks are grounded in shared reasoning structures.Based on this hypothesis, we propose ProtoReasoning, a framework that enhances the reasoning ability of LLMs by leveraging scalable and verifiable prototypical representations (Prolog for logical reasoning, PDDL for planning).ProtoReasoning features: (1) an automated prototype construction pipeline that transforms problems into corresponding prototype representations; (2) a comprehensive verification system providing reliable feedback through Prolog/PDDL interpreters; (3) the scalability to synthesize problems arbitrarily within prototype space while ensuring correctness. Extensive experiments show that ProtoReasoning achieves 4.7% improvement over baseline models on logical reasoning (Enigmata-Eval), 6.3% improvement on planning tasks, 4.0% improvement on general reasoning (MMLU) and 1.0% on mathematics (AIME24). Significantly, our ablation studies confirm that learning in prototype space also demonstrates enhanced generalization to structurally similar problems compared to training solely on natural language representations, validating our hypothesis that reasoning prototypes serve as the foundation for generalizable reasoning in large language models.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The Scaling Properties of Implicit Deductive Reasoning in Transformers

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    With shortcut-decorrelated training, bidirectional masking, and a corrective objective, depth scaling makes direct transformer reasoning over Horn clauses match CoT accuracy within the training horizon, but not beyond it.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    International planning competition

    IPC. International planning competition. URLhttps://www.icaps-conference.org/competitions/

    work page

  2. [2]

    URLhttps://artofproblemsolving.com/wiki/index

    American invitational mathematics exam (aime), 2024. URLhttps://artofproblemsolving.com/wiki/index. php/AIME_Problems_and_Solutions/

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Pddl| the planning domain definition language

    Constructions Aeronautiques, Adele Howe, Craig Knoblock, ISI Drew McDermott, Ashwin Ram, Manuela Veloso, Daniel Weld, David Wilkins Sri, Anthony Barrett, Dave Christianson, et al. Pddl| the planning domain definition language. TechnicalReport, Tech.Rep., 1998

    work page 1998

  4. [4]

    Reliable reasoning beyond natural language.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.11373, 2024

    Nasim Borazjanizadeh and Steven T Piantadosi. Reliable reasoning beyond natural language.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.11373, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Enigmata: Scaling logical reasoning in large language models with synthetic verifiable puzzles, 2025

    Jiangjie Chen, Qianyu He, Siyu Yuan, Aili Chen, Zhicheng Cai, Weinan Dai, Hongli Yu, Qiying Yu, Xuefeng Li, Jiaze Chen, Hao Zhou, and Mingxuan Wang. Enigmata: Scaling logical reasoning in large language models with synthetic verifiable puzzles, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2505.19914

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Towards reasoning era: A survey of long chain-of-thought for reasoning large language models

    Qiguang Chen, Libo Qin, Jinhao Liu, Dengyun Peng, Jiannan Guan, Peng Wang, Mengkang Hu, Yuhang Zhou, Te Gao, and Wanxiang Che. Towards reasoning era: A survey of long chain-of-thought for reasoning large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.09567, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Prentice hall Upper Saddle River, 1994

    Michael A Covington, Barbara J Grosz, and Fernando CN Pereira.Natural language processing for Prolog programmers. Prentice hall Upper Saddle River, 1994

    work page 1994

  8. [8]

    Elsevier, 2001

    Herbert B Enderton.A mathematical introduction to logic. Elsevier, 2001

    2001

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Pal: Program-aided language models

    Luyu Gao, Aman Madaan, Shuyan Zhou, Uri Alon, Pengfei Liu, Yiming Yang, Jamie Callan, and Graham Neubig. Pal: Program-aided language models. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 10764–10799. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948, 2025

    Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, et al. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Hybridmind: Meta selection of natural language and symbolic language for enhanced llm reasoning, 2025

    Simeng Han, Tianyu Liu, Chuhan Li, Xuyuan Xiong, and Arman Cohan. Hybridmind: Meta selection of natural language and symbolic language for enhanced llm reasoning, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2409.19381

    2025 arXiv

  4. [12]

    M. Helmert. The fast downward planning system.Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 26:191–246, July

  5. [13]

    Measuring massive multitask language understanding, 2021

    Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou, Mantas Mazeika, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. Measuring massive multitask language understanding, 2021. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2009.03300

    2021 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Val: Automatic plan validation, continuous effects and mixed initiative planning using pddl

    Richard Howey, Derek Long, and Maria Fox. Val: Automatic plan validation, continuous effects and mixed initiative planning using pddl. In16th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, pages 294–301. IEEE, 2004

    2004

  7. [15]

    Llm post-training: A deep dive into reasoning large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.21321, 2025

    Komal Kumar, Tajamul Ashraf, Omkar Thawakar, Rao Muhammad Anwer, Hisham Cholakkal, Mubarak Shah, Ming-Hsuan Yang, Phillip HS Torr, Fahad Shahbaz Khan, and Salman Khan. Llm post-training: A deep dive into reasoning large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.21321, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Learning to reason with llms, 2024

    OpenAI. Learning to reason with llms, 2024. URL https://openai.com/index/ learning-to-reason-with-llms/

    2024

  9. [17]

    Logic-lm: Empowering large language models with symbolic solvers for faithful logical reasoning

    Liangming Pan, Alon Albalak, Xinyi Wang, and William Yang Wang. Logic-lm: Empowering large language models with symbolic solvers for faithful logical reasoning. InThe 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 10

    2023

  10. [18]

    Qwen2.5 technical report, 2025

    Qwen, :, An Yang, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chengyuan Li, Dayiheng Liu, Fei Huang, Haoran Wei, Huan Lin, Jian Yang, Jianhong Tu, Jianwei Zhang, Jianxin Yang, Jiaxi Yang, et al. Qwen2.5 technical report, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2412.15115

    2025 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Proximal policy optimization algorithms

    John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov. Proximal policy optimization algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Seed-thinking-v1

    ByteDance Seed, Yufeng Yuan, Yu Yue, Mingxuan Wang, Xiaochen Zuo, Jiaze Chen, Lin Yan, Wenyuan Xu, Chi Zhang, Xin Liu, et al. Seed-thinking-v1. 5: Advancing superb reasoning models with reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.13914, 2025

    2025

  13. [21]

    PDDL generators.https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo

    Jendrik Seipp, Álvaro Torralba, and Jörg Hoffmann. PDDL generators.https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo. 6382173, 2022

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models

    Zhihong Shao, Peiyi Wang, Qihao Zhu, Runxin Xu, Junxiao Song, Xiao Bi, Haowei Zhang, Mingchuan Zhang, YK Li, Y Wu, et al. Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Kimi Team, Angang Du, Bofei Gao, Bowei Xing, Changjiu Jiang, Cheng Chen, Cheng Li, Chenjun Xiao, Chenzhuang Du, Chonghua Liao, et al. Kimi k1. 5: Scaling reinforcement learning with llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12599, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Nexusraven-v2: Surpassing gpt-4 for zero-shot function calling, 2023

    Nexusflow.ai team. Nexusraven-v2: Surpassing gpt-4 for zero-shot function calling, 2023. URLhttps://nexusflow. ai/blogs/ravenv2

    2023

  17. [25]

    Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models.Advancesin neural information processing systems, 35:24824–24837, 2022

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models.Advancesin neural information processing systems, 35:24824–24837, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    Swi-prolog and the web.Theory and practice of logic programming, 8(3):363–392, 2008

    Jan Wielemaker, Zhisheng Huang, and Lourens Van Der Meij. Swi-prolog and the web.Theory and practice of logic programming, 8(3):363–392, 2008

    2008

  19. [27]

    Swi-prolog.Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, 12(1-2):67–96, 2012

    Jan Wielemaker, Tom Schrijvers, Markus Triska, and Torbjörn Lager. Swi-prolog.Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, 12(1-2):67–96, 2012

    2012

  20. [28]

    On memorization of large language models in logical reasoning

    Chulin Xie, Yangsibo Huang, Chiyuan Zhang, Da Yu, Xinyun Chen, Bill Yuchen Lin, Bo Li, Badih Ghazi, and Ravi Kumar. On memorization of large language models in logical reasoning. InThe 4th Workshop on Mathematical Reasoning and AI at NeurIPS’24

  21. [29]

    Logic-rl: Unleashing llm reasoning with rule-based reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.14768, 2025

    Tian Xie, Zitian Gao, Qingnan Ren, Haoming Luo, Yuqian Hong, Bryan Dai, Joey Zhou, Kai Qiu, Zhirong Wu, and Chong Luo. Logic-rl: Unleashing llm reasoning with rule-based reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.14768, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Qwen3 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388, 2025

    An Yang, Anfeng Li, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chang Gao, Chengen Huang, Chenxu Lv, et al. Qwen3 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Reasonflux: Hierarchical llm reasoning via scaling thought templates

    Ling Yang, Zhaochen Yu, Bin Cui, and Mengdi Wang. Reasonflux: Hierarchical llm reasoning via scaling thought templates. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.06772, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Arithmetic reasoning with llm: Prolog generation & permutation

    Xiaocheng Yang, Bingsen Chen, and Yik-Cheung Tam. Arithmetic reasoning with llm: Prolog generation & permutation. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies(Volume 2: Short P...

    2024

  25. [33]

    Satlm: Satisfiability-aided language models using declarative prompting

    Xi Ye, Qiaochu Chen, Isil Dillig, and Greg Durrett. Satlm: Satisfiability-aided language models using declarative prompting. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:45548–45580, 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    Dapo: An open-source llm reinforcement learning system at scale.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14476, 2025

    Qiying Yu, Zheng Zhang, Ruofei Zhu, Yufeng Yuan, Xiaochen Zuo, Yu Yue, Tiantian Fan, Gaohong Liu, Lingjun Liu, Xin Liu, et al. Dapo: An open-source llm reinforcement learning system at scale.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14476, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Learning to reason via mixture-of- thought for logical reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.15817, 2025

    Tong Zheng, Lichang Chen, Simeng Han, R Thomas McCoy, and Heng Huang. Learning to reason via mixture-of- thought for logical reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.15817, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Don’t trust: Verify–grounding llm quantitative reasoning with autoformalization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.18120, 2024

    Jin Peng Zhou, Charles Staats, Wenda Li, Christian Szegedy, Kilian Q Weinberger, and Yuhuai Wu. Don’t trust: Verify–grounding llm quantitative reasoning with autoformalization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.18120, 2024. 11 Appendix A Prompt Template for Training Planning Tasks PDDL...

    2024 arXiv

  29. [38]

    Logic transformation must be precise and error-free, with transparent and complete process: * Strictly prohibit presetting any conclusions in the code; answers must be derived through Prolog execution * Programs avoid any logical jumps * Information requiring calculation in th...

  30. [39]

    result”: “No valid solution found

    Standardized queries: * Use only solve_json. as the query entry point * Results must output key logical outcomes in a concise and clear JSON format * Must import and correctly use :- use_module(library(http/json)) module for JSON conversion * You should ensure that if there is...

  31. [40]

    Code quality requirements: * Ensure code can be correctly executed by SWI-Prolog * Clearly divide into Program and Query sections * Code logic must be complete and correct, with no execution errors

  32. [41]

    result”: “No valid solution found

    Output specifications: * Generated JSON must be compatible with Python3 json.loads parsing * Prohibit outputting Prolog internal variables or intermediate results 13 * Appropriately convert data structures that are difficult to represent in JSON * You should ensure that if the...

  33. [42]

    Increasing problem complexity: * For simple multiple-choice questions, true/false questions, or other easily guessable problems, increase their complexity * Ensure the result space is sufficiently large and not easily randomly guessed

  34. [43]

    what" (problem definition) rather than the

    Determinism: * Code execution results must be deterministic; random logic is prohibited ## [Input] {prompt} ## [Output] Because Query can only be solve_json. , you only need to output Program: Prolog Problem Generalization Prompt Template ## [Instructions] You will continue th...

  35. [2006]

    doi: 10.1613/jair.1705

    ISSN 1076-9757. doi: 10.1613/jair.1705. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1613/jair.1705

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.