Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

HYBRIDMIND: Meta Selection of Natural Language and Symbolic Language for Enhanced LLM Reasoning

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2409.19381 v5 pith:2RIFVHL3 submitted 2024-09-28 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords reasoninglanguagenaturalsymbolicapproachfoliogpt-4ohybridmind
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

LLMs approach logical and mathematical reasoning through natural or symbolic languages. While natural language offers human-accessible flexibility but suffers from ambiguity, symbolic reasoning provides precise, machine-executable inferences at the cost of strict domain constraints. We introduce HYBRIDMIND, an adaptive strategy that selects the optimal reasoning approach for each reasoning problem. Through extensive experiments, we evaluate both prompting-based approaches with state-of-the-art LLMs and fine-tuned open-source models. We find that fine-tuning LLaMA-3.1-8B-Instruct as a meta-selector outperforms GPT-4o's natural language reasoning by 4.4\% on FOLIO and 1.3\% on MATH. More notably, using GPT-3.5-turbo as a prompted meta-selector yields a 10\% improvement on FOLIO's challenging subset compared to GPT-4o. We will release our code and data to support future research.

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. ProtoReasoning: Prototypes as the Foundation for Generalizable Reasoning in LLMs

    cs.CL 2025-06 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    Training on Prolog and PDDL representations improved several LLM reasoning benchmarks, but the controlled comparison does not show prototype training beats natural language training, and the abstract overstates the result.

Pith tools