Beyond Factual Knowledge: Benchmarking and Learning Step-Level Procedural Rule Reasoning in Large Language Models

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to specialized domains, where effective use of domain expertise often requires reasoning over complex rules in concrete scenarios. However, existing benchmarks only partially evaluate this capability, as they either focus on output-level instruction constraints or overlook the distinct roles that rules play in scenario reasoning. To address these gaps, this paper introduces RuleWeaver, a benchmark construction framework for evaluating rule-centered scenario reasoning. RuleWeaver starts from corpus-derived IF-THEN Meta Rules, progressively augments them into complex rules, and composes these rules into rule-centered scenario QA instances. Beyond final-answer correctness, RuleWeaver further supports process-level evaluation through rubric-based answer quality, rule recall, and rule precision. Experiments on 11 representative LLMs show that current models still struggle with complex rule-centered scenario reasoning, with even the best-performing model achieving only around 50% of the maximum rubric score. We make our code and dataset available here: https://github.com/SharkSpicy-NLP/RuleWeaver.

Test-time scaling has emerged as an effective way to improve language models on challenging reasoning tasks. However, most existing methods treat each problem in isolation and do not systematically reuse knowledge from prior reasoning trajectories. In particular, they underutilize procedural knowledge: how to reframe a problem, choose an approach, and verify or backtrack when needed. We introduce Reasoning Memory, a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) framework for reasoning models that explicitly retrieves and reuses procedural knowledge at scale. Starting from existing corpora of step-by-step reasoning trajectories, we decompose each trajectory into self-contained subquestion-subroutine pairs, yielding a datastore of 32 million compact procedural knowledge entries. At inference time, a lightweight in-thought prompt lets the model verbalize the core subquestion, retrieve relevant subroutines within its reasoning trace, and reason under diverse retrieved subroutines as implicit procedural priors. Across six math, science, and coding benchmarks, Reasoning Memory consistently outperforms RAG with document, trajectory, and template knowledge, as well as a compute-matched test-time scaling baseline. With a higher inference budget, averaged across models and tasks, it improves over no retrieval by 19.5% and over the compute-matched baseline by 8.9%. Ablation studies show that these gains come from two key factors: the broad procedural coverage of the source trajectories and our decomposition and retrieval design, which together enable effective extraction and reuse of procedural knowledge. Our experiment code is available at https://github.com/facebookresearch/reasoning-memory.

Large Language Models (LLMs) can propose rules in natural language, sidestepping the need for a predefined predicate space in traditional rule learning. Yet many LLM-based approaches ignore interactions among rules, and the opportunity to couple LLMs with probabilistic rule learning for robust inference remains underexplored. We present RLIE, a unified framework that integrates LLMs with probabilistic modeling to learn a set of weighted rules. RLIE has four stages: (1) Rule generation, where an LLM proposes and filters candidates; (2) Logistic regression, which learns probabilistic weights for global selection and calibration; (3) Iterative refinement, which updates the rule set using prediction errors; and (4) Evaluation, which compares the weighted rule set as a direct classifier with methods that inject rules into an LLM. We evaluate multiple inference strategies on real-world datasets. Applying rules directly with their learned weights yields superior performance, whereas prompting LLMs with the rules, weights, and logistic-model outputs surprisingly degrades accuracy. This supports the view that LLMs excel at semantic generation and interpretation but are less reliable for precise probabilistic integration. RLIE clarifies the potential and limitations of LLMs for inductive reasoning and couples them with classic probabilistic rule combination methods to enable more reliable neuro-symbolic reasoning.