A Neurosymbolic Approach to Natural Language Formalization and Verification

Aditya Gokhale; Ali Torkamani; Aman Goel; Andrew M. Kent; Benjamin Kiesl-Reiter; Byron Cook; Chenyang An; Darion Cassel; Dejan Jovanovi\'c; Dimitra Giannakopoulou

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 5 cited by

A neurosymbolic guardrail called ARC formalizes natural-language policies into logic and verifies LLM answers against them, claiming to exceed 99% soundness—the probability that content it certifies as valid actually is.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 22:42 UTC pith:4DFNLUSB

load-bearing objection A well-engineered guardrail with a genuinely new redundant-translation scheme; the 99% soundness claim is real under their metric but fragile outside the benchmark, so treat the headline as conditional. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2511.09008 v2 pith:4DFNLUSB submitted 2025-11-12 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LGcs.LO

A Neurosymbolic Approach to Natural Language Formalization and Verification

Chenyang An , Sam Bayless , Stefano Buliani , Darion Cassel , Byron Cook , Duncan Clough , R\'emi Delmas , Nafi Diallo

show 22 more authors

Ferhat Erata Nick Feng Dimitra Giannakopoulou Aman Goel Aditya Gokhale Joe Hendrix Victor Heorhiadi Marc Hudak Dejan Jovanovi\'c Andrew M. Kent Benjamin Kiesl-Reiter Jeffrey J. Kuna Nadia Labai Joseph Lilien Divya Raghunathan Zvonimir Rakamari\'c Niloofar Razavi Michael Tautschnig Ali Torkamani Nathaniel Weir Michael W. Whalen Jianan Yao

This is my paper

classification cs.CL cs.AIcs.LGcs.LO

keywords neurosymbolicpolicy formalizationSMT-LIBautoformalizationLLM guardraillogical verificationsoundnesspremise-conclusion validation

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper claims that combining large language models with symbolic reasoning can give regulated industries a guardrail that checks whether an LLM-generated answer logically follows from a written policy, and does so with over 99% soundness—meaning that among the answers the system certifies as valid, fewer than 1% are actually wrong. The system, ARC, works in two stages: a Policy Model Creator (PMC) auto-formalizes natural-language policy documents into logic (SMT-LIB), with optional human vetting to fix ambiguities; an Answer Verifier (AV) then translates each new question-answer pair into premise-conclusion formulas and uses an SMT solver to decide validity, redundancy-translating with multiple LLMs to guard against translation errors. On a benchmark derived from ConditionalQA, ARC reaches 99.2% soundness and a 2.5% false-positive rate, a level no compared neural or neurosymbolic baseline achieves. The authors argue this conservatism—accepting fewer valid answers to avoid approving wrong ones—is the right trade for finance, healthcare, and other compliance-driven settings. They also show that human vetting of policy models pushes soundness to 100% in a real airline-policy case.

Core claim

ARC's central claim is that formal verification of natural-language statements against formalized policies can surpass 99% soundness using a neurosymbolic, two-stage architecture, even on data the system never trained on. The Policy Model Creator auto-formalizes policy documents into policy models—quantifier-free SMT-LIB with non-linear arithmetic—by splitting documents into spans, incrementally formalizing each span with an LLM refinement loop, then composing units and unifying variables via embedding-based clustering. The Answer Verifier translates a question-answer pair into premise-conclusion pairs over the policy model's vocabulary, using k LLMs redundantly; an SMT solver assigns confid

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the policy model: a formalization of a policy document as QF_NRIA SMT-LIB—datatypes, typed variables with natural-language descriptions, and logical rules. It carries the argument because verification is reduced to SMT satisfiability: a claim is Valid exactly when the policy model and premises entail the conclusion (M ∧ P ⊨ C), Invalid when they entail its negation, Satisfiable when neither holds, and Impossible when the premises contradict the model. The second mechanism is redundant translation: the Answer Verifier translates each statement with k LLMs, then uses an SMT solver to compare the resulting premise-conclusion pairs semantically; the confidence of a pai

Load-bearing premise

In the head-to-head evaluation without human vetting, the automatically generated policy models are assumed to be faithful and complete logical translations of the source policy documents, so any rule that is missed, mis-unified, or misinterpreted silently corrupts the reported soundness.

What would settle it

Take a random sample of judgments that ARC certifies as Valid on the CONDITIONALQA-LOGIC benchmark, transcribe the corresponding policy text to a ground-truth formal model by hand, and compare: if the automatically-generated policy model either omits a rule or binds a variable differently in a way that changes an entailment verdict, then the 99.2% soundness claim does not transfer to the automatic (no-vetting) pipeline; one could also measure this directly by running ARC on documents where a human expert has already provided the ground-truth policy model.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

If the soundness claim holds, LLM chatbots in regulated industries could be paired with a guardrail that certifies only answers that provably follow from the formalized policy, turning reliability from a statistical property into an SMT-decidable one.
The confidence threshold provides a tunable soundness-recall knob: operators can choose stricter settings when false approvals are more dangerous, at the price of rejecting more valid content.
Policy models become amortizable compliance assets: once vetted, a single model can be reused across many future validation tasks, distributing the human effort over time.
ARC's feedback—counter-example scenarios and satisfied assignments—gives LLMs concrete guidance to revise answers; the paper reports valid answers rising from ~11% to ~44% after three revision iterations.
Because the policy model carries natural-language variable descriptions and rule rationales, the same artifact supports audit, dispute resolution, and policy improvement, not just guardrailing.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The 99.2% soundness figure was measured on a small, self-contained benchmark (522 instances) without policy vetting; the RyanAir case, where unvetted soundness fell to 96.8%, suggests that for complex real-world documents the guarantee should be read as conditional on policy-model quality. A stronger headline claim would require a stratified evaluation across document lengths and ambiguity levels.
Confidence based on k-LLM agreement is only as good as the independence of the LLMs' errors; if all k models share the same bias (e.g., mistranslating a common policy construction), agreement will overstate correctness. A testable check is to adversarially seed known misformalizations and ask whether the confidence score predicts which translations are wrong.
The method effectively uses symbolic reasoning to 'certify' logical entailment, but the semantics of the original natural-language policy are only captured as well as the policy model does; this suggests a natural extension: use the vetting feedback loop to also detect and repair missing rules—a direction the paper flags but does not automate.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

A well-engineered guardrail with a genuinely new redundant-translation scheme; the 99% soundness claim is real under their metric but fragile outside the benchmark, so treat the headline as conditional.

read the letter

Short version: ARC is a serious system with a genuinely new confidence scheme for LLM-to-logic translation, and the paper deserves referee time. But the headline 99% soundness is an empirical property of one benchmark with autoformalized policy models, not a guarantee of the method.

What is actually new: redundant translation with SMT-based semantic-equivalence scoring (Alg. 1) is a clean idea. The two-stage separation—offline policy model creation with optional human vetting, online answer verification—is a sensible architecture for regulated deployment. The CONDITIONALQA-LOGIC extension is useful, though not released. The evaluation is more thorough than most: they compare against LLM-judge and neurosymbolic baselines, use external ground-truth labels for Table 1, and report precision, recall, F1 and confusion counts alongside their own metric.

Where it softens: The soundness metric is 1 - FP/N, which rewards blanket rejection; at 15.6% recall the guardrail is extremely conservative. Calling the 2.5% FPR "near-zero" is a stretch for a safety-critical claim. That said, the paper reports FPR and precision, so the numbers are transparent. The bigger issue is the stress-test concern: the 99.2% figure was computed against policy models autoformalized without vetting. The RyanAir case shows unvetted soundness drops to 96.8% with 8.7% FPR, which directly contradicts the abstract's blanket claim. The paper's own Sec 5 concedes soundness depends on policy model quality, but the intro and abstract don't carry that caveat. That is a real gap between claim and evidence.

The RQ4 circularity is partially addressed: Figure 4 is self-evaluated, but Appendix A.1.1 re-evaluates final revised answers with three external judges. So the feedback story is weaker but not fully circular. Missing code, dataset, model names, and error bars are all addressable and should be required for a rigorous version.

Who this is for: researchers building guardrails for regulated domains and anyone working on LLM-to-logic translation confidence. The paper deserves a serious referee; the core idea is important, but the claims need sharper qualification and the artifacts need to be released.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents ARC, a two-stage neurosymbolic framework for validating natural-language statements against formalized policies. In the first stage, the Policy Model Creator (PMC) autoformalizes NL policy documents into SMT-LIB policy models with optional human vetting. In the second stage, the Answer Verifier (AV) translates NL question-answer content into premise-conclusion pairs using multiple LLMs, computes confidence scores by comparing these formalizations for logical entailment, and then uses an SMT solver to classify each claim as Valid, Invalid, Satisfiable, Impossible, TranslationAmbiguous, or NoTranslations. The empirical evaluation on CONDITIONALQA-LOGIC reports 99.2% soundness and 2.5% FPR at a 3/3 translation-confidence threshold, with 15.6% recall. A RyanAir case study shows that human policy vetting improves soundness from 96.8% to 100%. A feedback experiment shows iterative LLM answer revision using ARC's feedback. The paper concludes that ARC exceeds 99% soundness, a level it claims existing pure neural and neurosymbolic approaches cannot reach.

Significance. If the autoformalized policy models faithfully capture the source policies, ARC is a useful and practical architecture: it separates the costly policy-model creation step from the per-answer verification step, produces auditable SMT artifacts, and provides a principled way to use symbolic reasoning to give corrective feedback. The use of redundant LLM translations cross-checked by an SMT solver is a reasonable mechanism for quantifying translation confidence. The human-in-the-loop policy vetting is also a sensible contribution. The main scientific weakness is that the headline soundness claim is measured with an unconditional metric, depends on unverified policy-model fidelity, and is not supported by statistical analysis. As stated, the paper overclaims an assurance guarantee that the evidence does not establish.

major comments (4)

[§1, §4.1 (Metrics), Table 1] The soundness metric is defined as 'probability that content classified as valid is actually valid' but is computed as 1 − FP/#Samples. This is an unconditional probability over all decisions, not a conditional guarantee on accepted content. A guardrail that rejects every input achieves soundness = 1.0 with zero recall. At the reported 3/3 operating point, recall is only 15.6% and precision is 92.6%, so the operational guarantee on accepted answers is not 99%. The headline claim should be reported as an operating point constrained by a minimum recall requirement, or the paper should report conditional precision and the full FPR/recall frontier. This is central because the abstract and introduction claim an 'assurance threshold unattainable by existing approaches.'
[§4.2, Table 2, §5] The 99.2% soundness figure is computed against automatically generated policy models whose fidelity to the source NL documents is not audited. The SMT solver is sound relative to the formalization, but not relative to the ground-truth NL policy. The paper itself concedes in §5 that 'soundness of ARC heavily depends on the quality of the policy model,' and Table 2 shows that unvetted RyanAir autoformalization drops soundness to 96.8% with FPR 8.7%. No error analysis, manual audit sample, or comparison against a human-authored reference formalization is provided for the main CONDITIONALQA-LOGIC evaluation. The abstract's blanket claim 'ARC exceeds 99% soundness' is therefore unsupported; at minimum it must be restricted to vetted policy models or accompanied by evidence that the unvetted models are faithful.
[RQ4, Fig. 4, §4.2, Appendix A.1.1] The feedback-effectiveness claim is circular when ARC is both the feedback provider and the judge. Figure 4 reports that after three iterations the fraction of Valid answers rises from 10.8% to 43.9%, but these labels are ARC's own verdicts. A conservative verifier can make this number rise by rejecting less, without any corresponding change in true correctness. The appendix attempts to mitigate this by re-evaluating final answers with external judges, but the main-text RQ4 result is presented without external validation. The paper should either report externally judged results in Fig. 4 or clearly state that these are ARC's internal judgments, not ground-truth correctness.
[Abstract, §4.1, Table 1] The abstract and introduction claim a 'near-zero false positive rate,' but Table 1 reports FPR = 2.5% at the most conservative threshold. This is low but not near zero: with TN=506 and FP=13, roughly one in forty negative samples is falsely accepted. Moreover, the paper reports no confidence intervals or statistical tests; at the 3/3 threshold, a handful of false positives (13) drives the 99.2% soundness figure, and a change of a few decisions could move the point estimate substantially. Bootstrap or exact binomial intervals, and paired comparisons against the LLMaJ ensemble, are needed before claiming superiority over the second-best method.

minor comments (6)

[Table 1] The counts column is garbled (e.g., '16313 506884' makes TP/FP/TN/FN impossible to verify). The table should be reformatted so that each number is legible and the sums reconcile with the stated dataset size.
[§4.1] The text says CONDITIONALQA-LOGIC 'contains 349 Valid and 173 examples that are not Valid,' but the Table 1 counts (e.g., recall 15.6% with TP=163) imply about 1,047 positive samples and 519 negative samples. This inconsistency should be corrected.
[§3.2, Fig. 3] The label 'Validation Result: Satisfiable (not Valid)' is potentially confusing because 'Satisfiable' in this context means the conclusion is not entailed, not that the statement is true. A one-sentence clarification of the terminology would help.
[Algorithm 1] The support definition uses T' |= (P⇒C) and T' ⊭ ¬P. The behavior when T' is inconsistent or when the premise P is unsatisfiable is not discussed. This can affect confidence scores and should be clarified.
[§4.2, Table 2] The threshold/ensemble configuration for the RyanAir case study is not specified, making it hard to compare with Table 1. Please state the ARC configuration used.
[Throughout] The paper uses inconsistent capitalization 'ARc' in the abstract and 'ARC' elsewhere; please unify.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the 99% soundness claim is benchmarked against external ground-truth labels; the RQ4 feedback experiment is only mildly self-referential and is supplemented with external judges.

full rationale

The central 99.2% soundness claim is not circular: Table 1 evaluates ARC end-to-end against external ground-truth labels in CONDITIONALQA-LOGIC, which were produced from ConditionalQA's original human annotations plus systematic condition manipulations, not from ARC's own verdicts. The SMT checks are sound relative to the autoformalized policy model, so the headline is an empirical accuracy result that could have been lower. The 3/3 confidence threshold and redundant translation are reported design choices with explicit tradeoffs, not fitted parameters renamed as predictions. The paper's stated limitation in Sec. 5, 'Soundness of ARC heavily depends on the quality of the policy model,' and the RyanAir case-study drop to 96.8% unvetted soundness are threats to generalization and model fidelity, but they do not make the Table 1 derivation self-referential. The RQ4/Figure 4 feedback experiment uses ARC's own verdicts as the improvement metric, which is internally consistent for measuring guardrail acceptance, and Table 3 supplements it with external judges (LLMaJ, FG), so any self-referentiality is partial, secondary, and not load-bearing. No derivation step reduces to its own input by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on three hand-set operational parameters (confidence threshold, k=3, clustering threshold) and on the assumption that autoformalized policy models are faithful without human vetting. No new physical or mathematical entities are postulated. The main caveat is that the empirical '99% soundness' figure is sensitive to metric choice and threshold tuning, and the policy-model faithfulness assumption is acknowledged by the authors to fail on real-world documents without vetting.

free parameters (3)

AV confidence threshold = 3/3 (default)
Algorithm 1's translation confidence threshold is configurable; the reported 99.2% soundness is for threshold 3/3, while threshold 2/3 gives 98.7% soundness. The default is hand-set to satisfy the 99% target.
Number of redundant LLMs k = 3
Alg. 1 uses k parallel LLM translations; k is fixed at 3 in all experiments with no sensitivity analysis.
Variable-clustering cosine threshold = unspecified
PMC unifies variables across policy units using cosine-similarity clustering (Sec 3.1.1); the similarity threshold is not reported and affects the composed policy model.

axioms (4)

domain assumption QF_NRIA is expressive enough for regulatory policies
Appendix A.3.1 restricts formalization to quantifier-free SMT-LIB with nonlinear arithmetic; if a policy requires quantifiers or complex nesting, ARC cannot represent it faithfully.
domain assumption Autoformalized policy model faithfully represents the NL policy
Table 1's no-vetting evaluation assumes PMC output for CONDITIONALQA-LOGIC is correct; Table 2 shows an unvetted real-world policy yields only 96.8% soundness, so the assumption is load-bearing.
domain assumption Agreement among k LLM translations implies correct formalization
Alg. 1 computes confidence as the fraction of translations entailing P⇒C; no independent evidence is offered that agreement correlates with semantic fidelity, and all k models may share the same bias.
standard math Z3/SMT is sound for the supported fragment
The paper relies on standard SMT soundness for Valid/Invalid/Satisfiable verdicts; this is accepted background math.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 18876 in / 14571 out tokens · 149266 ms · 2026-08-03T22:42:45.351832+00:00 · methodology

0 comments

read the original abstract

Large Language Models perform well at natural language interpretation and reasoning, but their lack of formal correctness guarantees limits their adoption in regulated industries like finance and health-care that operate under strict policies. To address this limitation, we launched Automated Reasoning checks (ARc): a public service that (1) uses LLMs with optional human guidance to formalize natural language policies, allowing fine-grained control of the formalization process, and (2) uses inference-time autoformalization to validate logical correctness of natural language statements against those policies. ARc performs multiple redundant formalization steps at inference time, checking the formalizations for semantic equivalence. Our benchmarks show that ARc exceeds 99% soundness and achieves a near-zero false positive rate in identifying logical validity. Our approach produces auditable artifacts that substantiate the verification outcomes and can be used to improve the original text. ARc is the first commercial offering from a major cloud provider to integrate automated reasoning into a generative AI guardrail.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.09008 by Aditya Gokhale, Ali Torkamani, Aman Goel, Andrew M. Kent, Benjamin Kiesl-Reiter, Byron Cook, Chenyang An, Darion Cassel, Dejan Jovanovi\'c, Dimitra Giannakopoulou, Divya Raghunathan, Duncan Clough, Ferhat Erata, Jeffrey J. Kuna, Jianan Yao, Joe Hendrix, Joseph Lilien, Marc Hudak, Michael Tautschnig, Michael W. Whalen, Nadia Labai, Nafi Diallo, Nathaniel Weir, Nick Feng, Niloofar Razavi, R\'emi Delmas, Sam Bayless, Stefano Buliani, Victor Heorhiadi, Zvonimir Rakamari\'c.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: End-to-end architecture of ARC SAT-LM (Ye et al., 2023) employs declarative prompting with SMT (De Moura & Bjørner, 2008). Logic-LM (Pan et al., 2023) supports multiple formalisms with self-refinement. Autoformalization has been studied in mathematics (Wang et al., 2018; Szegedy, 2020; Wu et al., 2022; Jiang et al., 2022). However, existing neurosymbolic systems focus on single-shot problem solving. Unlik… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Snippets of policy model (top: variable schema; bottom: rules) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Snippet of validation feedback For example, consider the text under validation in §3 and the policy model shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: ARC validation finding distribution after k iterations of answer revision using ARC feedback. At k = 0, we plot the finding distribution before any revisions. RQ4: Effectiveness of ARC’s Feedback. The formally-grounded feedback that ARC provides (Section 3.2), in addition to being helpful for human vetting and policy refinement as discussed above, can also be used for automated answer revision. In Fig… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Number of datatypes, variables, and rules with respect to number of unique pages of text formalized, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: The fragment of SMTLIB expressed by our formalization. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: LLM-as-Judge Prompt for the example in Sec. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: LLM-as-Judge Validation (Claude Sonnet 3.7) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: LLM-as-Judge Validation (Claude Opus 4.1) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Prompt template utilized for LLM-based answer refinement. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Prompt utilized for LLM-as-Judge (LLMaJ) method (Part 1/2) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_11.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Prompt utilized for LLM-as-Judge (LLMaJ) method (Part 2/2) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_12.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

Neurosymbolic Auditing of Natural-Language Software Requirements
cs.SE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

VERIMED translates natural-language requirements to formal logic via LLMs, detects ambiguity from stochastic formalization differences, and audits for inconsistency and safety violations using SMT queries.
MANTRA: Synthesizing SMT-Validated Compliance Benchmarks for Tool-Using LLM Agents
cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

MANTRA automatically synthesizes SMT-validated compliance benchmarks for LLM agents from natural language manuals and tool schemas, producing 285 tasks across 6 domains with minimal human effort.
Closing the Loop: Formally Verified Law as a Reward Signal for Self-Improving Legal AI
cs.LG 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

Architecture for formally verified law as reward signal for legal AI using LLM autoformalization into Catala extension, verification kernel, and proof-trace explanations, demonstrated on deadline, Commerce Clause, and...
Managing Uncertainty in LLM-Generated Procedural Knowledge for Virtual Laboratory Planning
cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

A framework that extracts candidate procedural rules from uncertain LLM-generated state-transition samples, transforms them into explicit constraints, and uses them to repair steps in virtual lab planning.
FregeLogic at SemEval 2026 Task 11: A Hybrid Neuro-Symbolic Architecture for Content-Robust Syllogistic Validity Prediction
cs.CL 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

A neuro-symbolic system using LLM disagreement to trigger Z3 formal verification achieves 94.3% accuracy and a combined score of 41.88 on syllogistic validity prediction, improving on the pure ensemble by reducing con...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

7 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith · cited by 5 Pith papers

[1]

with PMC rules, without Doc98.9 3.5 93.524.7 39.1 48.5 25918 501788
[2]

Table 4: Overall logical accuracy detection across types of in-context information for LLM baselines

with PMC rules in addition to the document text. Table 4: Overall logical accuracy detection across types of in-context information for LLM baselines. In-Context Information S↑FPR↓ Pr↑Re↑F1↑Ac↑ TP↑FP↓TN↑FN↓ LLMaJ (#3-ensemble, threshold=3/3)98.3 5.0 92.1 29.0 44.2 50.9 304 26 493 743
[6]

URLhttps://aclanthology.org/2025

doi: 10.18653/v1/2025.naacl-long.510. URLhttps://aclanthology.org/2025. naacl-long.510/. Potsawee Manakul, Adian Liusie, and Mark Gales. SelfCheckGPT: Zero-resource black-box hallu- cination detection for generative large language models. In Houda Bouamor, Juan Pino, and Ka- lika Bali (eds.),Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natur...

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[7]

Each page consists of approximately 500 tokens

with PMC rules, with Doc 97.6 7.1 90.634.2 49.7 53.6 35837 482689 A.1.3 PMCSCALING In order to examine how PMC scales with respect to policy size, we run it over a large real-world document consisting of 274 pages of content. Each page consists of approximately 500 tokens. Figure 5 measures the number of datatypes, variables, rules with respect to documen...

1968
[9]

Hyun Ryu, Gyeongman Kim, Hyemin S Lee, and Eunho Yang

URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780444508133/ handbook-of-automated-reasoning. Hyun Ryu, Gyeongman Kim, Hyemin S Lee, and Eunho Yang. Divide and translate: Composi- tional first-order logic translation and verification for complex logical reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.08047, 2024. Haitian Sun, William W Cohen, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. Condit...

arXiv 2024
[37]

Alon Jacovi, Andrew Wang, Chris Alberti, Connie Tao, Jon Lipovetz, Kate Olszewska, Lukas Haas, Michelle Liu, Nate Keating, Adam Bloniarz, et al

URLhttps://doi.org/10.24963/kr.2023/37. Alon Jacovi, Andrew Wang, Chris Alberti, Connie Tao, Jon Lipovetz, Kate Olszewska, Lukas Haas, Michelle Liu, Nate Keating, Adam Bloniarz, et al. The facts grounding leaderboard: Bench- marking llms’ ability to ground responses to long-form input.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.03200, 2025. Albert Q Jiang, Sean Welleck, Ji...

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023
[2021]

doi: 10.3233/FAIA342

ISBN 978-1-64368-244-0. doi: 10.3233/FAIA342. URLhttps://doi.org/10. 3233/FAIA342. Xiangkun Hu, Dongyu Ru, Lin Qiu, Qipeng Guo, Tianhang Zhang, Yang Xu, Yun Luo, Pengfei Liu, Yue Zhang, and Zheng Zhang. Knowledge-centric hallucination detection. In Yaser Al- Onaizan, Mohit Bansal, and Yun-Nung Chen (eds.),Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Em- pirical ...

doi:10.3233/faia342 2024

[1] [1]

with PMC rules, without Doc98.9 3.5 93.524.7 39.1 48.5 25918 501788

[2] [2]

Table 4: Overall logical accuracy detection across types of in-context information for LLM baselines

with PMC rules in addition to the document text. Table 4: Overall logical accuracy detection across types of in-context information for LLM baselines. In-Context Information S↑FPR↓ Pr↑Re↑F1↑Ac↑ TP↑FP↓TN↑FN↓ LLMaJ (#3-ensemble, threshold=3/3)98.3 5.0 92.1 29.0 44.2 50.9 304 26 493 743

[3] [6]

URLhttps://aclanthology.org/2025

doi: 10.18653/v1/2025.naacl-long.510. URLhttps://aclanthology.org/2025. naacl-long.510/. Potsawee Manakul, Adian Liusie, and Mark Gales. SelfCheckGPT: Zero-resource black-box hallu- cination detection for generative large language models. In Houda Bouamor, Juan Pino, and Ka- lika Bali (eds.),Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natur...

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

[4] [7]

Each page consists of approximately 500 tokens

with PMC rules, with Doc 97.6 7.1 90.634.2 49.7 53.6 35837 482689 A.1.3 PMCSCALING In order to examine how PMC scales with respect to policy size, we run it over a large real-world document consisting of 274 pages of content. Each page consists of approximately 500 tokens. Figure 5 measures the number of datatypes, variables, rules with respect to documen...

1968

[5] [9]

Hyun Ryu, Gyeongman Kim, Hyemin S Lee, and Eunho Yang

URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780444508133/ handbook-of-automated-reasoning. Hyun Ryu, Gyeongman Kim, Hyemin S Lee, and Eunho Yang. Divide and translate: Composi- tional first-order logic translation and verification for complex logical reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.08047, 2024. Haitian Sun, William W Cohen, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. Condit...

arXiv 2024

[6] [37]

Alon Jacovi, Andrew Wang, Chris Alberti, Connie Tao, Jon Lipovetz, Kate Olszewska, Lukas Haas, Michelle Liu, Nate Keating, Adam Bloniarz, et al

URLhttps://doi.org/10.24963/kr.2023/37. Alon Jacovi, Andrew Wang, Chris Alberti, Connie Tao, Jon Lipovetz, Kate Olszewska, Lukas Haas, Michelle Liu, Nate Keating, Adam Bloniarz, et al. The facts grounding leaderboard: Bench- marking llms’ ability to ground responses to long-form input.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.03200, 2025. Albert Q Jiang, Sean Welleck, Ji...

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

[7] [2021]

doi: 10.3233/FAIA342

ISBN 978-1-64368-244-0. doi: 10.3233/FAIA342. URLhttps://doi.org/10. 3233/FAIA342. Xiangkun Hu, Dongyu Ru, Lin Qiu, Qipeng Guo, Tianhang Zhang, Yang Xu, Yun Luo, Pengfei Liu, Yue Zhang, and Zheng Zhang. Knowledge-centric hallucination detection. In Yaser Al- Onaizan, Mohit Bansal, and Yun-Nung Chen (eds.),Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Em- pirical ...

doi:10.3233/faia342 2024