cs.AIFeb 21, 2026
SaveABD: Default Exception Abduction in Finite First Order Worlds
Abstract
We introduce ABD, a benchmark for default-exception abduction over finite first-order worlds. Given a background theory with an abnormality predicate and a set of relational structures, a model must output a first-order formula that defines exceptions, restoring satisfiability while keeping exceptions sparse. We formalize three observation regimes (closed-world, existential completion, universal completion) with exact SMT verification. Evaluating ten frontier LLMs on 600 instances, the best models achieve high validity but parsimony gaps remain, and holdout evaluation reveals distinct generalization failure modes across regimes.
Figures & tables
| (a) Dataset Statistics | |||||
| Scenario | N | Prompt | Holdout | Theories | |
| FULL | 195 | 9.0 | 5.0 | 9–11 | T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 |
| PARTIAL | 243 | 8.3 | 5.0 | 9–11 | T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 |
| SKEPTICAL | 162 | 6.0 | 5.0 | 10–12 | T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, T7 |
| Total | 600 | ||||
Table 1: Abduction Benchmark Summary. (a) Dataset statistics by scenario. (b) Default theories used in the benchmark; each theory defines when blocks a default conclusion.
| FULL | PARTIAL | SKEPTICAL | Overall | |||||||||||||||||
| Model | PV% | PSV% | AST | Gap | GRef | PV% | PSV% | AST | Gap | GRef | PV% | PSV% | AST | Gap | GRef | PV% | PSV% | AST | Gap | GRef |
| High Validity ( ) | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Opus-4.6 | 100 | 100 | 12.4 | 1.26 | 0.74 | 98 | 98 | 15.9 | 1.02 | 0.55 | 99 | 99 | 15.8 | 0.86 | 0.17 | 99 | 99 | 14.7 | 1.05 | 0.51 |
| GPT-5.2 | 85 | 84 | 36.6 | 0.93 | 0.41 | 92 | 92 | 16.3 | 1.30 | 0.84 | 100 | 100 | 15.7 | 1.49 | 0.80 | 92 | 92 | 22.0 | 1.25 | 0.70 |
| Gemini-3.1 | 99 | 99 | 12.5 | 1.27 | 0.76 | 97 | 97 | 11.4 | 1.40 | 0.93 | 98 | 98 | 13.5 | 1.18 | 0.50 | 98 | 98 | 12.3 | 1.30 | 0.76 |
| Grok4.1f | 96 | 94 | 12.8 | 1.32 | 0.80 | 95 | 95 | 9.0 | 1.69 | 1.23 | 96 | 96 | 11.8 | 1.46 | 0.82 | 95 | 95 | 11.0 | 1.51 | 0.98 |
Table 2: Abduction Prompt-Set Performance. Models are grouped by overall repaired prompt validity into high ( ), intermediate, and low ( ) bands; within each band, rows are ordered by overall Gap. Percentages are benchmark instances, not worlds. PV% = prompt-valid after conservative suffix repair; PSV% = strict prompt-validity without repair; AST = mean formula size among prompt-valid formulas; Gap = normalized extra exceptions above the solver lower bound; GRef = normalized extra exceptions vs. the planted generator reference. Gap and GRef average over prompt-valid formulas only. Lower is better for AST, Gap, and GRef. Best values bold.
| Opus-4.6 | GPT-5.2 | Gemini-3.1 | Grok4.1f | DSR | GPT-5.4 | Grok4 | Gemini-3 | Kimi-K2t | Hermes4 | GPT-4o | ||||||||||||
| Theory | PV% | GRef | PV% | GRef | PV% | GRef | PV% | GRef | PV% | GRef | PV% | GRef | PV% | GRef | PV% | GRef | PV% | GRef | PV% | GRef | PV% | GRef |
| T1 | 100 | 0.81 | 97 | 1.10 | 97 | 1.03 | 97 | 1.46 | 95 | 1.46 | 95 | 0.07 | 92 | 0.95 | 97 | 0.99 | 76 | 1.97 | 3 | 4.00 | 16 | 5.29 |
| T2 | 99 | 0.74 | 94 | 0.84 | 99 | 0.93 | 98 | 1.05 | 96 | 1.10 | 82 | 0.05 | 91 | 0.76 | 81 | 0.71 | 75 | 1.33 | 2 | 1.01 | 16 | 2.00 |
| T3 | 99 | 0.71 | 88 | 0.67 | 98 | 0.71 | 97 | 1.02 | 97 | 0.97 | 82 | -0.14 | 90 | 0.74 | 70 | 0.63 | 74 | 1.36 | 1 | 2.00 | 28 | 1.25 |
| T4 | 99 | 0.46 | 88 | 0.78 | 97 | 0.89 | 91 | 1.12 | 95 | 1.13 | 86 | -0.18 | 86 | 0.71 | 60 | 0.86 | 59 | 1.44 | 0 | — | 14 | 4.66 |
| T5 | 98 | 0.16 | 96 | 0.61 | 98 | 0.56 | 92 | 0.80 | 99 | 0.86 | 85 | -0.21 | 90 | 0.62 | 92 | 0.53 | 82 | 0.99 | 8 | 2.82 | 5 | 5.17 |
Table 3: Abduction Prompt-Set Performance by Theory. PV% = prompt-validity after conservative suffix repair; GRef = normalized extra exceptions vs. the planted generator reference, averaged over prompt-valid formulas only. T1–T5 aggregate across all scenarios; T6–T7 are ABD-Skeptical only. Lower is better for GRef. Best values bold.
| Model | PV% | HV% | PGap | HGap | Gap | AST |
| Opus-4.6 | 98.8% | 62.2% | 1.05 | 2.24 | +0.97 | 14.7 |
| GPT-5.2 | 92.2% | 61.5% | 1.25 | 2.45 | +0.85 | 22.0 |
| Gemini-3.1 | 98.0% | 69.7% | 1.30 | 2.37 | +0.98 | 12.3 |
| Grok4.1f | 95.2% | 82.2% | 1.51 | 2.54 | +0.94 | 11.0 |
| DSR | 95.9% | 80.6% | 1.55 | 2.64 | +0.96 | 10.8 |
| GPT-5.4 | 85.2% | 24.8% | 0.42 | 1.37 | +0.56 | 65.9 |
Table 4: Generalization Drop Profile. Aggregated across all scenarios. PV%/HV% are instance-level prompt/holdout validity; PGap/HGap are normalized per-world gaps on their respective valid subsets; Gap is computed on survivors valid on both prompt and holdout; AST = mean formula size among prompt-valid formulas. Best values bold.
| Model | FULL | PARTIAL | SKEPTICAL | ||||||||||||
| PV% | HV% | PGap | HGap | Gap | PV% | HV% | PGap | HGap | Gap | PV% | HV% | PGap | HGap | Gap | |
| Opus-4.6 | 100% | 87% | 1.26 | 2.66 | +1.34 | 98% | 51% | 1.02 | 2.09 | +0.92 | 99% | 49% | 0.86 | 1.59 | +0.25 |
| GPT-5.2 | 85% | 54% | 0.93 | 2.74 | +1.49 | 92% | 68% | 1.30 | 2.52 | +1.02 | 100% | 61% | 1.49 | 2.06 | -0.02 |
| Gemini-3.1 | 99% | 87% | 1.27 | 2.60 | +1.35 | 97% | 68% | 1.40 | 2.44 | +1.00 | 98% | 52% | 1.18 | 1.80 | +0.21 |
| Grok4.1f | 96% | 88% | 1.32 | 2.59 | +1.27 | 95% | 85% | 1.69 | 2.85 | +1.14 | 96% | 69% | 1.46 | 1.83 | -0.02 |
| DSR | 96% | 85% | 1.42 | 2.86 | +1.42 | 96% | 85% | 1.54 | 2.72 | +1.11 | 96% | 70% | 1.69 | 2.23 | +0.09 |
Table 5: Holdout Generalization by Scenario. PV%/HV% are prompt/holdout validity; PGap/HGap are normalized per-world gaps on their respective valid subsets; Gap is computed on survivors valid on both prompt and holdout. Best HV% and Gap per scenario bold.
| FULL | PARTIAL | SKEPTICAL | ||||||||||||||||
| [0,15) | [15,30) | [30, ) | [0,15) | [15,30) | [30, ) | [0,15) | [15,30) | [30, ) | ||||||||||
| Model | H P | H P | H P | H P | H P | H P | H P | H P | H P | |||||||||
| Opus-4.6 | 98 | +1.5 | 62 | +0.6 | 50 | 0.0 | 80 | +1.1 | 30 | +0.5 | 0 | — | 73 | +0.3 | 26 | +0.1 | 10 | +2.2 |
| GPT-5.2 | 97 | +1.7 | 65 | +0.9 | 17 | +0.8 | 89 | +1.1 | 42 | +0.7 | 12 | +0.9 | 88 | -0.1 | 24 | +0.3 | 12 | +1.7 |
| Gemini-3.1 | 93 | +1.6 | 71 | +0.8 | 100 | +0.1 | 78 | +1.0 | 38 | +0.7 | — | — | 73 | +0.2 | 18 | 0.0 | 33 | +0.5 |
| Grok4.1f | 99 | +1.4 | 64 | +0.7 | 89 | +0.1 | 93 | +1.2 | 33 | -0.1 | 0 | — | 87 | 0.0 | 31 | +0.2 | — | — |
Table 6: Holdout Generalization by Formula Complexity. H P columns report holdout validity conditional on prompt validity (percent); columns report survivor-conditioned Gap. Hermes4 and GPT-4o are omitted due to too few valid responses.
Appendix figures & tables16 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| ID | Antecedent | Consequent |
| T1 | ||
| T2 | ||
| T3 | ||
| T4 | ||
| T5 | ||
| T6 |
Table C.1: Theory library. Each theory is a single default rule .
| ID | Allowed in | Forbidden in | Repaired |
| T1 | |||
| T2 | |||
| T3 | |||
| T4 | |||
| T5 | |||
| T6 |
Table C.2: Predicate scoping per theory. Repaired = consequent predicates excluded from to prevent shortcuts.
| Predicate | Arity | Full / Partial | Skeptical | True atoms |
| 1 | ||||
| 1 | ||||
| 2 | ||||
| 2 |
Table D.1: Predicate density ranges by scenario. For each world the sampler draws uniformly from the listed interval; . ABD-Full and ABD-Partial share the same ranges; ABD-Skeptical uses denser binary predicates and a narrower range.
| ABD-Partial | ABD-Skeptical | |||
| Theory | ||||
| T1 (TH2) | 0.20 | 0.10 | 0.05 | 0.08 |
| T2 (TH7) | 0.20 | 0.10 | 0.05 | 0.05 |
| T3 (TH10) | 0.20 | 0.10 | 0.05 | 0.05 |
| T4 (TH11) | 0.20 | 0.10 | 0.05 | 0.05 |
| T5 (TH12) | 0.20 | 0.10 | 0.05 | 0.05 |
Table D.2: Unknown-atom rates (fraction of binary atoms masked). ABD-Partial uses the default column; ABD-Skeptical uses theory-specific rates to keep universal validity tractable.
| ABD-Full | ABD-Partial | ABD-Skeptical | ||||
| Metric | Prompt | Hold | Prompt | Hold | Prompt | Hold |
| Worlds/inst | 9.0 | 5.0 | 8.3 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 5.0 |
| PW Ref Cost | 1.78 | 1.88 | 1.68 | 1.75 | 2.05 | 2.10 |
| PW OptCost | 1.27 | 1.33 | 1.20 | 1.32 | 1.36 | 1.54 |
| PW Ref Gap | 0.51 | 0.55 | 0.48 | 0.43 | 0.69 | 0.56 |
Table F.1: Per-world summary statistics for prompt and holdout sets. Values are means across all instances in each scenario. Reference Gap = Reference Cost OptCost, per world.
| Opus-4.6 | GPT-5.2 | Gemini-3.1 | Grok4.1f | DSR | GPT-5.4 | Grok4 | Gemini-3 | Kimi-K2t | Hermes4 | GPT-4o | |
| T1 | 1.3/3.2 (4) | 1.3/3.7 (3) | 1.5/3.2 (4) | 1.4/3.2 (5) | 1.5/3.3 (5) | 0.1/0.4 (1) | 1.1/3.2 (3) | 1.1/1.9 (3) | 1.5/3.1 (4) | — | — |
| T2 | 1.4/3.2 (56) | 1.1/3.2 (34) | 1.4/3.2 (54) | 1.4/2.9 (44) | 1.6/3.6 (44) | 0.3/1.3 (16) | 0.8/1.5 (31) | 1.2/2.8 (36) | 1.3/3.5 (33) | — | 2.0/5.3 (6) |
| T3 | 1.4/2.8 (37) | 0.9/2.6 (17) | 1.2/2.5 (39) | 1.5/2.8 (39) | 1.5/2.8 (34) | 0.2/1.2 (7) | 1.1/2.6 (27) | 1.4/2.5 (19) | 1.5/2.9 (26) | — | 1.4/3.6 (4) |
| T4 | 1.3/2.3 (46) | 0.9/2.4 (22) | 1.4/2.1 (44) | 1.3/2.3 (45) | 1.5/2.6 (41) | 0.0/0.4 (6) | 0.9/1.4 (25) | 1.4/2.2 (21) | 1.7/2.6 (24) | — | 5.3/6.4 (0) |
| T5 | 0.8/1.8 (27) | 0.6/2.2 (17) | 0.9/2.0 (27) | 0.9/2.0 (23) | 0.9/1.9 (27) | 0.1/1.1 (4) | 0.7/1.9 (21) | 0.9/2.0 (24) | 1.3/2.3 (24) | 2.8/5.5 (5) | 5.8/7.1 (1) |
Table G.1: Per-theory results: ABD-Full . Each cell shows PGap / HGap (survivors).
| Opus-4.6 | GPT-5.2 | Gemini-3.1 | Grok4.1f | DSR | GPT-5.4 | Grok4 | Gemini-3 | Kimi-K2t | Hermes4 | GPT-4o | |
| T1 | 1.0/2.5 (5) | 0.9/3.3 (2) | 1.0/3.0 (3) | 1.4/3.0 (5) | 1.4/3.0 (5) | 0.5/2.2 (2) | 1.3/3.1 (4) | 2.3/2.4 (3) | 1.3/2.9 (4) | — | — |
| T2 | 1.2/2.6 (39) | 1.4/2.8 (49) | 1.5/2.8 (56) | 1.6/3.0 (63) | 1.6/2.9 (59) | 0.7/2.6 (21) | 1.6/2.9 (52) | 1.3/2.3 (26) | 1.7/3.0 (54) | 1.8/3.0 (2) | 2.9/3.2 (9) |
| T3 | 1.2/2.1 (36) | 1.3/2.5 (32) | 1.3/2.3 (38) | 1.6/2.7 (46) | 1.5/2.6 (40) | 0.8/2.6 (11) | 1.5/2.7 (39) | 1.2/2.1 (20) | 1.7/2.6 (34) | — | 1.7/2.6 (24) |
| T4 | 0.9/1.7 (23) | 1.4/2.6 (44) | 1.5/2.3 (37) | 2.0/3.1 (52) | 1.7/2.9 (57) | 0.6/1.8 (12) | 1.7/2.9 (39) | 1.3/2.2 (18) | 1.9/3.2 (41) | — | 5.0/5.8 (4) |
| T5 | 0.6/1.4 (21) | 0.9/1.8 (25) | 1.0/1.9 (31) | 1.4/2.4 (26) | 1.2/2.2 (30) | 0.4/1.3 (12) | 1.4/2.6 (26) | 0.9/2.1 (19) | 1.3/2.3 (25) | — | 5.8/6.6 (0) |
Table G.2: Per-theory results: ABD-Partial . Format as Table G.1 .
| Opus-4.6 | GPT-5.2 | Gemini-3.1 | Grok4.1f | DSR | GPT-5.4 | Grok4 | Gemini-3 | Kimi-K2t | Hermes4 | GPT-4o | |
| T1 | 1.0/1.8 (10) | 1.4/2.3 (14) | 1.2/2.3 (10) | 1.8/2.0 (13) | 1.8/2.5 (14) | 0.2/1.6 (4) | 1.2/2.4 (4) | 1.0/2.0 (10) | 2.5/2.3 (18) | 4.0/4.0 (1) | 5.5/9.2 (1) |
| T2 | 1.1/2.6 (14) | 1.8/3.2 (14) | 1.5/2.9 (16) | 1.8/2.4 (16) | 1.8/3.4 (16) | 0.6/0.7 (8) | 1.4/2.8 (11) | 1.2/2.1 (14) | 3.3/4.4 (18) | 1.9/5.8 (1) | 2.6/4.9 (7) |
| T3 | 1.4/2.4 (13) | 1.7/3.1 (12) | 1.4/2.2 (10) | 1.8/2.7 (14) | 1.7/2.7 (14) | 0.2/0.5 (6) | 1.3/2.4 (10) | 1.2/1.8 (11) | 3.2/4.3 (16) | 2.0/4.4 (1) | 2.8/4.3 (5) |
| T4 | 0.9/1.7 (13) | 2.1/2.7 (17) | 1.5/2.0 (15) | 1.5/1.9 (8) | 2.3/2.9 (24) | 0.6/1.0 (12) | 1.2/2.6 (11) | 1.7/2.6 (14) | 2.8/3.3 (20) | — | — |
| T5 | 1.1/1.0 (13) | 2.4/1.3 (22) | 1.7/1.2 (15) | 2.0/1.6 (15) | 2.5/1.5 (21) | 0.8/0.9 (11) | 1.6/1.3 (12) | 1.7/1.3 (18) | 2.5/1.5 (19) | 4.9/4.2 (2) | 6.9/— (0) |
| T6 | 0.2/0.1 (3) | 0.2/0.7 (4) | 0.2/0.1 (2) | 0.4/1.3 (7) | 0.3/0.8 (5) | 0.0/0.3 (3) | 0.2/0.1 (2) | 0.2/0.2 (4) | 0.2/0.5 (2) | — | 2.9/3.2 (12) |
Table G.3: Per-theory results: ABD-Skeptical . Format as Table G.1 . Note negative Gap for T5: holdout gap is often lower than prompt gap because worst-case costs can be smaller in holdout worlds for this theory.
| Model | N | Mean | Med | P90 | Max | 3 | 5 |
| ABD-Full | |||||||
| Opus-4.6 | 195 | 1.26 | 1.25 | 2.00 | 2.7 | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| GPT-5.2 | 152 | 0.93 | 0.90 | 1.99 | 2.4 | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Gemini-3.1 | 194 | 1.27 | 1.20 | 1.97 | 7.9 | 1.0% | 1.0% |
| Grok4.1f | 171 | 1.32 | 1.25 | 2.12 | 3.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| DSR | 172 | 1.42 | 1.39 | 2.16 | 3.2 | 0.6% | 0.0% |
Table G.4: Normalized prompt-gap distribution by scenario. N = predictions valid on all prompt worlds. 3 and 5 are tail percentages.
| Theory | Opus-4.6 | GPT-5.2 | Gemini-3.1 | Grok4.1f | DSR | GPT-5.4 | Grok4 | Gemini-3 | Kimi-K2t | Hermes4 | GPT-4o |
| T1 | +0.5 (19) | +0.4 (19) | +0.6 (17) | +0.5 (23) | +0.4 (24) | +0.6 (7) | +1.5 (11) | +0.5 (16) | +0.2 (26) | — | — |
| T2 | +1.5 (109) | +1.3 (97) | +1.5 (126) | +1.3 (123) | +1.5 (119) | +0.8 (45) | +1.1 (94) | +1.2 (76) | +1.5 (105) | — | +1.7 (22) |
| T3 | +1.0 (86) | +1.0 (61) | +1.0 (87) | +1.0 (99) | +1.1 (88) | +0.8 (24) | +1.1 (76) | +0.7 (50) | +1.0 (76) | — | +1.0 (33) |
| T4 | +0.8 (82) | +0.8 (83) | +0.9 (96) | +0.9 (105) | +0.9 (122) | +0.4 (30) | +1.0 (75) | +0.9 (53) | +1.0 (85) | — | — |
| T5 | +0.6 (61) | +0.3 (64) | +0.5 (73) | +0.5 (64) | +0.4 (78) | +0.2 (27) | +0.6 (59) | +0.5 (61) | +0.5 (68) | +0.8 (7) | — |
| T6 | — | — | — | +0.4 (7) | +0.1 (5) | — | — | — | — | — | +0.2 (12) |
Table G.5: Holdout Gap by Theory. T1–T5 aggregate across all three scenarios; T6–T7 are ABD-Skeptical only. Each cell shows Gap = HGap PGap over survivors valid on both prompt and holdout, with N = survivor count. Cells with fewer than 5 survivors are suppressed. Lower is better. Best per theory bold.
| Model | PV | P+H | H P | H P% |
| Opus-4.6 | 593 | 591 | 373 | 63.1% |
| GPT-5.2 | 522 | 521 | 344 | 66.0% |
| Gemini-3.1 | 588 | 586 | 417 | 71.2% |
| Grok4.1f | 512 | 511 | 440 | 86.1% |
| DSR | 543 | 542 | 455 | 83.9% |
| GPT-5.4 | 511 | 509 | 145 | 28.5% |
Table G.6: Instance-Level Holdout Survival Counts. All counts are benchmark instances. H P% = holdout validity conditional on prompt validity. Best values bold.
| Theory | ABD-Full | ABD-Partial | ABD-Skeptical |
| T1 | 4/42 (9.5%) | 5/42 (11.9%) | 14/239 (5.9%) |
| T2 | 63/437 (14.4%) | 32/604 (5.3%) | 36/186 (19.4%) |
| T3 | 62/323 (19.2%) | 16/431 (3.7%) | 53/185 (28.6%) |
| T4 | 77/417 (18.5%) | 48/573 (8.4%) | 75/219 (34.2%) |
| T5 | 63/247 (25.5%) | 30/258 (11.6%) | 58/208 (27.9%) |
| T6 | — | — | 86/129 (66.7%) |
Table G.7: Reference-beating rate by theory (all models pooled). = predictions beating the planted generator reference out of prompt-valid predictions.
| Ref AST | ABD-Full | ABD-Partial | ABD-Skeptical |
| — | — | 0/9 (0.0%) | |
| — | — | 51/254 (20.1%) | |
| 45/198 (22.7%) | 33/510 (6.5%) | 111/629 (17.6%) | |
| 112/546 (20.5%) | 60/636 (9.4%) | 67/187 (35.8%) | |
| 59/565 (10.4%) | 30/595 (5.0%) | 91/279 (32.6%) | |
| 53/157 (33.8%) | 5/155 (3.2%) | 11/38 (28.9%) |
Table G.8: Reference-beating rate by planted generator reference AST size (all models pooled).
| Model | Valid% | Invalid% | Parse% | Repair% | Missing% |
| Opus-4.6 | 98.8% | 0.5% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.7% |
| GPT-5.2 | 92.2% | 6.0% | 1.8% | 0.2% | 0.0% |
| Gemini-3.1 | 98.0% | 2.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Grok4.1f | 95.2% | 3.9% | 0.9% | 0.7% | 0.0% |
| DSR | 95.9% | 3.9% | 0.2% | 1.6% | 0.0% |
| GPT-5.4 | 85.2% | 14.0% | 0.8% | 6.7% | 0.0% |
Table H.1: Failure Mode Breakdown. Aggregated across all abduction tasks. Parse = unrepaired parse failure; Repair = trailing right-parenthesis repair applied before evaluation; Invalid = parsed but not valid on all prompt worlds; Valid = prompt-valid predictions. Best values bold.
| Failure Mode | ABD-Full | ABD-Partial | ABD-Skeptical |
| Auto-repaired parse | 47 | 26 | 18 |
| Parse error | 87 | 43 | 86 |
| All invalid (prompt) | 208 | 343 | 218 |
| Partial invalid (prompt) | 288 | 270 | 54 |
| Brittle (holdout) | 357 | 583 | 571 |
| of which catastrophic | 121 | 174 | 332 |
Table H.2: Failure-mode counts across all 6,367 model predictions.
| Pattern | ABD-Full | ABD-Partial | ABD-Skeptical |
| Exists-only | 126 | 215 | 225 |
| Mixed quantifiers | 79 | 32 | 47 |
| Propositional (and) | 0 | 9 | 19 |
| Forall-only | 0 | 3 | 9 |
| Other | 1 | 10 | 2 |
Table H.3: Brittle formula syntactic patterns. “Exists-only” = existential quantifiers without universals.
Explore similar work
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.
Don't Let Me Ask for It: LLMs Show Deficiencies in Active Multi-Turn Information Acquisition for Abductive Inference
Abductive reasoning requires forming hypotheses that explain observed evidence and revising them as new evidence becomes available. While large language models (LLMs) are often evaluated on whether they solve abductive reasoning tasks correctly, less is known about how they acquire evidence, update their hypotheses, and decide when to stop. We introduce Alien Abduction game, an interactive probe for studying these behaviours under different interaction modes. The modes vary in whether evidence is provided upfront or across turns, and whether queries are selected by the model or examples are provided by the oracle. Across models, providing evidence upfront leads to higher success rates than distributing it across turns. In multi-turn settings, some models commit before using the available evidence, while others exhaust the turn budget without converging. Models also achieve higher success rates when examples are provided by the oracle than when they select their own queries, although their final hypotheses are more consistent with the evidence they selected. These findings suggest that models may form hypotheses that fit self-selected evidence without sufficiently distinguishing them from alternatives, and may struggle to validate and refine their hypotheses or determine when to stop.
Graph of States: Solving Abductive Tasks with Large Language Models
Logical reasoning encompasses deduction, induction, and abduction. However, while Large Language Models (LLMs) have effectively mastered the former two, abductive reasoning remains significantly underexplored. Existing frameworks, predominantly designed for static deductive tasks, fail to generalize to abductive reasoning due to unstructured state representation and lack of explicit state control. Consequently, they are inevitably prone to Evidence Fabrication, Context Drift, Failed Backtracking, and Early Stopping. To bridge this gap, we introduce Graph of States (GoS), a general-purpose neuro-symbolic framework tailored for abductive tasks. GoS grounds multi-agent collaboration in a structured belief states, utilizing a causal graph to explicitly encode logical dependencies and a state machine to govern the valid transitions of the reasoning process. By dynamically aligning the reasoning focus with these symbolic constraints, our approach transforms aimless, unconstrained exploration into a convergent, directed search. Extensive evaluations on two real-world datasets demonstrate that GoS significantly outperforms all baselines, providing a robust solution for complex abductive tasks. Code repo and all prompts: https://github.com/gaorch85/Graph-of-States.