Teaching LLMs String Matching, Backtracking, and Error Recovery to Deduce Bases and Truth Tables for the Combinatorially Exploding Bit Manipulation Puzzles

Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve strong performance on logical reasoning benchmarks, yet their reliability remains uncertain. Existing evaluations rely on static benchmarks, which fail to assess robustness under logically equivalent transformations and often overestimate reasoning capability. We propose LGMT (Logic-Grounded Metamorphic Testing), an oracle-free framework that leverages first-order logic (FOL) to evaluate LLM reasoning. By deriving metamorphic relations from formal logical equivalences, LGMT constructs semantically invariant test cases and detects reasoning defects through cross-case consistency checking. Experiments on six state-of-the-art LLMs show that LGMT exposes substantial hidden defects missed by traditional reference-based evaluations. We further find that models are particularly sensitive to symbol-level and conclusion-level variations, and that advanced prompting such as Few-shot CoT only partially mitigates these issues. These results suggest that LLM evaluation should move beyond isolated correctness toward robustness under logical invariance. LGMT provides a principled and scalable approach for diagnosing reasoning failures.

Autoregressive chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning in large language models (LLMs) is fundamentally forward-directed: each step conditions only on prior tokens. This unidirectional inductive bias renders even capable models susceptible to error snowballing, wherein a single logical or arithmetic mistake in an early step irreversibly corrupts the entire reasoning chain. We introduce Teleological Reasoning Infilling (\TRI{}), a training framework that endows decoder-only transformers with a native \emph{goal-conditioned bridging} capability. The key insight is to reframe erroneous reasoning segments as fill-in-the-middle (FIM) tasks: given a verified prefix premise $P$, a verified downstream milestone $S$, and the original query $Q$, the model must synthesise the logical bridge $M$ that connects $P$ to $S$ rigorously and completely. To achieve this with standard causal architectures, we introduce a Prefix-Suffix-Middle (PSM) sequence rearrangement with three non-overlapping sentinel tokens, enabling $M$ to attend to both $P$ and $S$ without any structural modification to the self-attention mechanism. Training proceeds in two stages: (i) Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) on symbolically verified $(P, S, M)$ triples extracted from formal mathematics corpora, and (ii) Direct Preference Optimisation (DPO) with a deterministic symbolic verifier (Lean 4 / Python) as the sole reward oracle, eliminating LLM-judge sycophancy. At inference, TRI operates as a surgical repair module within a dual-system loop: a causal draft model generates an initial trace, the verifier pinpoints failures, and TRI infills only the damaged segment, leaving verified sections intact. Comprehensive experiments on three benchmarks demonstrate that TRI achieves state-of-the-art performance across all tasks, while reducing per-problem token expenditure by 31.2%.

Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning improves large language model (LLM) performance while also providing an observable interface to the model's reasoning process. Existing approaches that leverage verbalized CoTs to monitor reasoning correctness, however, largely evaluate the semantic correctness or consistency of individual intermediate steps, rather than how the reasoning process evolves across the trace. As a result, failures distributed across the reasoning trajectory, rather than those localized to a single incorrect step, remain comparatively underexplored. Furthermore, verbalized CoTs need not faithfully reflect the model's internal reasoning, motivating analyses that do not treat individual statements as literal accounts of internal computation. In this work, we therefore ask whether the dynamics of visible CoT can be leveraged to systematically distinguish successful from failed reasoning without assuming such semantic faithfulness. We study a range of LLMs on verifiable Boolean satisfiability tasks with variable complexity, enabling controlled comparisons near each model's capability frontier. Tagging CoT sentences by reasoning function reveals premature verification collapse on SAT problems: incorrect traces enter clause checking earlier, repeat similar operations, and finalize sooner. On UNSAT problems, models presumptuously move towards incorrect SAT conclusions, checking candidate assignments rather than deriving contradictions across constructed cases. Subsequently, a targeted proof-search prompt intervention raises Llama3-70B accuracy from 13.3% to 85%, correcting 84.6% of these errors. These results show that capability failures can manifest as distributed, task-dependent changes in the structure of visible reasoning, and that CoT dynamics agnostic to whether the verbalized trace reflects the model's internal computations can help diagnose and correct failures.