Anti-Goal Reasoning: Rethinking the Theory of Goal Reasoning in Non-Axiomatic Logic

Large language models perform well on many reasoning tasks, yet they often lack awareness of whether their current knowledge or reasoning state is complete. In non-interactive puzzle settings, the narrative is fixed and the underlying structure is hidden; once a model forms an early hypothesis under incomplete premises, it can propagate that error throughout the reasoning process, leading to unstable conclusions. To address this issue, we propose SABA, a reasoning framework that explicitly introduces self-awareness of missing premises before making the final decision. SABA formulates reasoning as a recursive process that alternates between structured state construction and obstacle resolution: it first applies Information Fusion to consolidate the narrative into a verifiable base state, and then uses Query-driven Structured Reasoning to identify and resolve missing or underspecified premises by turning them into queries and progressively completing the reasoning state through hypothesis construction and state refinement. Across multiple evaluation metrics, SABA achieves the best performance on all three difficulty splits of the non-interactive Detective Puzzle benchmark, and it also maintains leading results on multiple public benchmarks.

Large language models generate computationally expensive yet semantically void reasoning on beyond-capability tasks, creating risks where plausible-sounding but incorrect derivations mislead users. We characterize this \textit{futile reasoning} phenomenon through systematic analysis, revealing universal capability overreach and systematic miscalibration between capability and behavior. The dominant failure mode is specious reasoning, which outputs look superficially valid but contain subtle errors, escalating with task difficulty. To address this, we introduce \textbf{CaRL} (\textbf{Ca}pability-\textbf{a}ligned \textbf{R}einforcement \textbf{L}earning), which aligns model behavior with capability boundaries through reward shaping that incentivizes refusal over futile reasoning and hindsight refusal augmentation that converts failures into refusal supervision. Experiments demonstrate a substantial reduction in futile reasoning while preserving performance across task difficulties, effectively achieving capability-aligned behavior without sacrificing utility. \footnote{https://github.com/icip-cas/Knowing-When-to-Quit}

Counterfactual explanation in abstract argumentation calls for an answer to the what-if query: would the topic argument still be accepted if the status of certain other arguments were changed? Existing approaches are limited to the but-for test and fail to accommodate more refined counterfactual conditions. To overcome these limitations, we introduce an intervention-based counterfactual reasoning framework in abstract argumentation. Our approach encodes the acceptance conditions of arguments as equations, then defines an intervention operator that supports (1) changing sets of arguments simultaneously, and (2) fixing witness arguments to their actual labels. Guided by the refined counterfactual condition introduced in the Halpern-Pearl definition, our method goes beyond the but-for test, thereby correctly identifying causes in argumentation structures such as Preemption and Overdetermination. Through comparison, we show that our method surpasses prior methods in both expressiveness and reliability.