COCOLogic-V2: Identifying Logical Inconsistencies via Truly Hard-Negatives

Large Vision Language Models (VLMs) excel at visual question answering and semantic grounding, but their capacity for autonomous logical reasoning remains underexplored. Existing anomaly benchmarks emphasize visual errors or direct prompting rather than the physical and social common sense needed for open-world deployment. To address this, we introduce LAD-bench, a benchmark of more than 1,000 curated synthetic images with logical anomalies across four domains: Residential, Urban, Collaborative, and Nature. We further propose a Tiered Prompting Protocol based on progressive disclosure, which measures how much explicit assistance a model needs to localize and reason about a logical fault. Evaluating leading foundation models reveals substantial weaknesses: even the best achieves only 70.11% overall accuracy, showing that implicit logical fault detection remains unsolved. Crucially, models often fail to identify anomalies even after receiving explicit hints in deeper tiers. By surfacing these limitations in sequential multimodal reasoning, LAD-Bench offers a rigorous framework for advancing the safety, reliability, and cognitive alignment of autonomous visual systems. Dataset and Code: https://huggingface.co/datasets/SahasraK/LADBench

While Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) exhibit strong perceptual capabilities, they remain vulnerable in visual reasoning tasks. Existing benchmarks largely focus on symbolic mathematical or scientific problems and simple vision-centric tasks, offering limited assessment of complex visual reasoning and logical consistency, a critical requirement for reliable reasoning systems. We introduce ConVBench, a complex vision-centric reasoning benchmark in which each image is paired with two logically equivalent questions across six categories: action and state, complex counting, spatial reasoning, causal and intent understanding, commonsense reasoning, and temporal perception. To complement this benchmark, we define two evaluation metrics, logical consistency and robust accuracy, that jointly assess both the correctness and consistency of model responses. We further present ConVLM, which improves LVLM reasoning through Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO)-based reinforcement learning with a novel consistency reward. This method leverages automatically generated logically equivalent question-answer pairs and a dual-reward design combining accuracy- and consistency-based signals, encouraging agreement between paired responses. The framework functions effectively with or without strict answer supervision.

Chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting enables large language models (LLMs) to tackle multi-step reasoning tasks, yet the generated intermediate steps are not guaranteed to be logically sound. We present Reason Popper-ly, a neurosymbolic framework that uses inductive logic programming (ILP) to learn relation composition rules from reasoning traces and deploys them as an online verifier for step-level correction. Given an LLM-generated trace, the method checks each inferred step against the learned rule table, diagnoses the violation type, rewrites incorrect steps with symbolically derived repairs, and regenerates the remaining suffix so that the model can produce its final answer conditioned on a verified trace. We evaluate on CLUTRR, a multi-hop kinship reasoning benchmark, using five language models over reasoning chains of 2 to 10 hops. Across all models, Reason Popper-ly consistently improves terminal accuracy over standard CoT, with gains of up to 48 percentage points for small models and 15 points for frontier models on the longest chains. Compared with a fully exogenous symbolic pipeline, our method performs better on harder instances by preserving the model's successful grounding while correcting only verifiable reasoning failures. In addition, step-level ILP verification yields a fine-grained error taxonomy that provides diagnostic insight beyond final-answer accuracy.