Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable proficiency in natural language understanding, yet they struggle with strict multi-step reasoning, frequently suffering from hallucinations and inconsistency. Existing solutions like Chain-of-Thought (CoT) lack rigorous verification mechanisms, while standard Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) often misses the complex, structural dependencies inherent in logical tasks. To bridge this gap, we propose a Neuro-Symbolic architecture that integrates a Logical Knowledge Graph (LKG) with dynamic solver routing. Specifically, we introduce an ontology-based LKG that treats logical rules and constraints as first-class topological nodes, enabling explicit modeling of dependencies extracted from text. We further design a Logic Router to dynamically dispatch tasks to the optimal symbolic engine, which is supported by a topology-aware hybrid retrieval mechanism. Experimental results on logical reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that our framework significantly outperforms state-of-the-art prompting and RAG baselines, delivering higher accuracy and verifiable reasoning paths.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison of reasoning paradigms. The input highlights constraints in green, noise in grey, and premises in orange. The Direct LLM Pipeline (left) ignores this structure. It makes a “Closed World Assumption” (CWA) error and incorrectly guesses Jamie won. The SymbolLKG Pipeline (right) converts text into a Logical Knowledge Graph. It uses symbolic verification to strictly check the premises. The system correctly concludes the answer is “Unknown”.
Figure 2: The architecture of the SymbolLKG framework. The pipeline consists of two phases: Phase 1 (LKG Construction) transforms text into an LKG, establishing a dynamic Concept-Entity hierarchy alongside reified Rule and Constraint nodes. Phase 2 (Inference) employs a hybrid retrieval strategy (combining vector search with graph traversal) to extract a context-aware subgraph. Then a topology-aware router dispatch it to the optimal symbolic solver for verifiable execution.
Node Type
Symbol
Definition & Categories (Codebase)
Key Attributes (Class Fields)
Role in Reasoning
Entity
VE
Concrete instances implemented as Entity class. IDs are generated via SHA256 hash of lemmatized name and type.
name , entity_type , id (Canonical Hash), properties
Anchors for retrieval. Hash-based IDs ensure uniqueness across the graph.
Concept
VC
Abstract categories implemented as Concept class.
name , labels
Simple taxonomy nodes supporting type grouping.
Rule
VR
Logical implications implemented as Rule class.
expression , description , embedding
Stores logic formulas; description allows vector-based retrieval of rules.
Constraint
VS
Restrictions on states, implemented as 4 subclasses: 1. Arithmetic (Math ops) 2. AllDifferent (Combinatorial) 3. Ordering (Spatial/Temporal relations like left_of , newer_than ) 4. Generic (Constraints outside the above-listed categories)
raw_expression , constraint_type , Specific: relation , operation , value
Defines solution boundaries. Ordering handles both topological and chronological constraints via relation types.
Table 1: Node Taxonomy in the Symbolic-Cognitive Logical Knowledge Graph (SymbolLKG). The schema distinguishes between static entities, hierarchical concepts, deductive rules, and arithmetic constraints to facilitate dynamic solver routing.
Dataset
CoT
Logic-LM
Ours
FOLIO
70.58
78.92
71.39
AR-LSAT
35.06
43.04
57.85
Logical Deduction
75.25
87.63
90.81
ProntoQA
98.79
83.20
100.00
ProofWriter
68.11
79.66
73.60
Avg.
69.56
74.49
78.73
Table 2: Logical Reasoning Accuracy (%) across five benchmarks. Methods compared include Standard CoT prompting and the neuro-symbolic baseline Logic-LM.
Type
Method
2WikiMultiHopQA
HotpotQA
Recall@2
Recall@5
Recall@2
Recall@5
Single-step
BM25
51.8
61.9
55.4
72.2
Contriever
46.6
57.5
57.2
75.5
GTR
60.2
67.9
59.4
73.3
RAPTOR
46.3
53.8
58.1
71.2
Proposition
56.4
63.1
58.7
71.1
Table 3: Retrieval Performance (Recall@2 and Recall@5) on 2WikiMultiHopQA and HotpotQA. Baselines are categorized into Single-step and Multi-step approaches. SymbolLKG leverages topology-aware traversal to optimize evidence retrieval.
Method
2Wiki
HotpotQA
Musique
Average
EM
F1
EM
F1
EM
F1
EM
F1
NativeRAG
33.4
43.3
43.4
57.7
15.5
26.4
30.8
42.5
GraphRAG
51.4
58.6
55.2
68.6
27.3
38.5
44.6
55.2
IRCoT + HippoRAG
47.7
62.7
45.7
59.2
21.9
33.3
38.4
51.7
HippoRAG 2
65.0
71.0
62.7
75.5
37.2
48.6
55.0
65.0
SymbolLKG
70.2
74.9
73.8
81.5
48.6
59.4
64.2
71.9
Table 4: End-to-end QA Performance (EM and F1). We compare our SymbolLKG against baselines on 2WikiMultiHopQA, HotpotQA and Musique.
Dataset
Ground-Truth Solver
Random
SymbolLKG
AR-LSAT
Z3
33.3
100.0
LogicalDeduction
Z3
33.3
100.0
FOLIO
PROVER9
33.3
85.0
ProofWriter
PROVER9
33.3
92.0
ProntoQA
PYKE
33.3
53.0
Average
–
33.3
86.0
Table 5: Router classification accuracy (%) on a mixed evaluation set of 500 instances (100 per dataset). The ground-truth solver per dataset is determined by the design intent of each symbolic engine.
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 3: Prompt template for Logical Knowledge Graph Construction. This prompt instructs the LLM to extract structured logic from text based on a dynamic ontology. It defines specific schemas for Entities, Concepts, and logical relationships (Rules/Constraints), enforcing a strict JSON output format to ensure graph integrity.
Figure 9
Figure 4: Prompt template for the Symbolic Solver (Z3) Code Generation. This prompt guides the model to translate the retrieved logical subgraph into an executable Python script utilizing the Z3 SMT solver. It enforces a structured coding process: declaring variables for entities, encoding facts as constraints, and formulating the specific query logic to verify the answer.
Figure 5: Prompt template for the Logic Pruning Module. This prompt instructs the LLM to filter the expanded candidate set.
Figure 6: Prompt template for the Adaptive Logic Router. This prompt guides the model to classify the reasoning task by evaluating the retrieved constraints and rules. It explicitly defines the decision boundaries for solver selection: Z3 is chosen for arithmetic and constraint satisfaction problems (CSPs), Prover9 for first-order logic theorem proving, and Pyke for knowledge-based relational inference.
Figure 7: Case Study: Logical Knowledge Graph Extraction Result. The figure displays the structured JSON output extracted from an AR-LSAT logical reasoning problem. It demonstrates how the system identifies entities (e.g., Office, Computer), maps concepts, and formalizes complex constraints (e.g., “AllDifferent”, “Ordering”) and logical rules from the raw text context.
Figure 8: Case Study: Inference Pipeline Log. This log trace illustrates the step-by-step execution flow: (1) Hybrid Search retrieves relevant rules regarding “Year” and “Office”; (2) Pruning filters candidates down to the essential logic; (3) The Logic Router correctly identifies the task as an arithmetic/ordering problem and selects the Z3 Solver; (4) The system generates and executes valid Z3 code to derive the final answer.
Dataset
LKG
LLM
Total
2Wiki
159.2
6.79
165.96
HotpotQA
208.5
6.00
214.57
MuSiQue
395.8
11.35
407.14
Appendix
Table 6: Per-sample wall-clock latency (seconds) on the multi-hop QA pipeline, averaged over N=100 instances per benchmark.
Dataset
LKG
Solver
Total
AR-LSAT
33.1
102.5
135.6
LogicalDeduction
18.9
103.3
122.2
FOLIO
23.4
91.8
115.2
ProntoQA
34.3
37.1
71.4
ProofWriter
35.1
131.4
166.5
Average
29.0
93.2
122.2
Appendix
Table 7: Per-sample wall-clock latency (seconds) on the logical reasoning pipeline, averaged over 20 instances per dataset ( N=100 in total). “Total” reflects single-path production deployment (LKG construction plus the routed-solver path with up to three self-refining retries).
Despite the syntactic fluency of Large Language Models (LLMs), ensuring their logical correctness in high-stakes domains remains a fundamental challenge. We present a neurosymbolic framework that combines LLMs with SMT solvers to produce verification-guided answers through iterative refinement. Our approach decomposes LLM outputs into atomic claims, autoformalizes them into first-order logic, and verifies their logical consistency using automated theorem proving. We introduce three key innovations: (1) multi-model consensus via formal semantic equivalence checking to ensure logic-level alignment between candidates, eliminating the syntactic bias of surface-form metrics, (2) semantic routing that directs different claim types to appropriate verification strategies: symbolic solvers for logical claims and LLM ensembles for commonsense reasoning, and (3) precise logical error localization via Minimal Correction Subsets (MCS), which pinpoint the exact subset of claims to revise, transforming binary failure signals into actionable feedback. Our framework classifies claims by their logical status and aggregates multiple verification signals into a unified score with variance-based penalty. The system iteratively refines answers using structured feedback until acceptance criteria are met or convergence is achieved. This hybrid approach delivers formal guarantees where possible and consensus verification elsewhere, advancing trustworthy AI. With the GPT-OSS-120B model, VERGE demonstrates an average performance uplift of 18.7% at convergence across a set of reasoning benchmarks compared to single-pass approaches.
Vikash Singh, Darion Cassel, Nathaniel Weir +2
Case Western Reserve University · Amazon Web Services
Large Language Models (LLMs) still struggle with multi-step logical reasoning. Existing approaches either purely refine the reasoning chain in natural language form or attach a symbolic solver as an external module. In this work, we instead ask whether LLMs contain a shared internal logical subspace that simultaneously aligns natural-language and symbolic-language views of the reasoning process. Our hypothesis is that this logical subspace captures logical reasoning capabilities in LLMs that are shared across views while remaining independent of surface forms. To verify this, we employ Canonical Correlation Analysis on the paired residual activations from natural-language and symbolic-language reasoning chains, learning a low-dimensional subspace with maximum cross-view correlation. Furthermore, we design a training-free approach that steers LLMs reasoning chain along this logical subspace, thereby leveraging the complementary reasoning signals from both views. Experiments on four logical reasoning benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach, improving accuracy by up to 11 percentage points and generalizing well on out-of-domain problems.
Feihao Fang, My T. Thai, Yuanyuan Lei
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL · Computer & Information Science and Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
Evaluations of large language models (LLMs) primarily emphasize convergent logical reasoning, where success is defined by producing a single correct proof. However, many real-world reasoning problems admit multiple valid derivations, requiring models to explore diverse logical paths rather than committing to one route. To address this limitation, we introduce LogicGraph, the first benchmark aimed to systematically evaluate multi-path logical reasoning, constructed via a neuro-symbolic framework that leverages backward logic generation and semantic instantiation. This pipeline yields solver-verified reasoning problems formalized by high-depth multi-path reasoning and inherent logical distractions, where each instance is associated with an exhaustive set of minimal proofs. We further propose a reference-free evaluation framework to rigorously assess model performance in both convergent and divergent regimes. Experiments on state-of-the-art language models reveal a common limitation: models tend to commit early to a single route and fail to explore alternatives, and the coverage gap grows substantially with reasoning depth. LogicGraph exposes this divergence gap and provides actionable insights to motivate future improvements. Our code and data will be released at https://github.com/kkkkarry/LogicGraph.
Yanrui Wu, Lingling Zhang, Xinyu Zhang +5
School of Computer Science and Technology, Xi’an Jiaotong University · Ministry of Education Key Laboratory of Intelligent Networks and Network Security, China · Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University +2