Logical Reasoning

Why do intelligent systems need to perform explicit symbolic reasoning? Computer science has traditionally regarded symbolic reasoning as a defining component of intelligence. Yet the remarkable success of modern foundation models raises a fundamental question: if increasingly capable AI systems can operate with little explicit symbolic reasoning, what role do symbolic methods actually play? This article argues that explicit symbolic reasoning is not a fundamental property of intelligence, but a computational consequence of operating on simplified models of reality. We propose the Compression Principle: every computational model is a simplified representation of reality, and explicit symbolic reasoning compensates for information omitted during model construction. From this principle, we derive the Modeling--Reasoning Trade-off: as computational models preserve richer representations of the world, the need for explicit symbolic reasoning correspondingly decreases. This perspective provides a unified explanation for both the historical success of symbolic methods and the remarkable effectiveness of modern foundation models. Paradoxically, the same development makes symbolic methods increasingly important for humans. As intelligent systems become more capable and more opaque, symbolic representations increasingly serve as interfaces through which humans specify requirements, verify behavior, regulate autonomous systems, and establish trust. We therefore argue that the future of symbolic methods lies not primarily as the computational engine of intelligent systems, but as the symbolic interface between increasingly capable AI systems and the humans who build, govern, and depend upon them.

Multi-step symbolic reasoning is essential for robust financial analysis, yet most benchmarks neglect intermediate reasoning steps. FINCHAIN introduced verifiable Chain-of-Thought (CoT) evaluation but is limited to English. FINESSE-Bench includes a Russian block but relies on multiple-choice questions without step-level supervision. We present RusFinChain, the first Russian-language symbolic benchmark for verifiable CoT reasoning in finance. It spans 17 domains, 172 topics, and comprises 5,280 parameterized examples from executable Python templates, ensuring contamination-free evaluation. Each example includes a gold-standard reasoning chain with intermediate numeric values for automatic verification. We also introduce enhanced metrics: Fuzzy Numeric Alignment and Soft-Attention Alignment. We evaluate 8 open-weight LLMs on a stratified sample, generating 8,100 responses. Results reveal a substantial reasoning gap: models achieve Hard F1 of ~0.65 for step alignment, but only ~29% of final answers are correct. Our fuzzy and soft metrics show stronger correlation with final-answer correctness (Spearman rho approx 0.48) than the original ChainEval (rho approx 0.38-0.46), demonstrating superior diagnostic power. We release dataset, code, and evaluation framework to foster verifiable financial AI for the Russian-speaking community.

In his 1996 doctoral thesis, Maurice Pagnucco created the first AGM-like abductive expansion operation. Taking his operation as a basis, as well as a taxonomy -- inspired by Atocha Aliseda -- responsible for highlighting and formalizing the main components of abductive reasoning, the main aim of this paper is to present a new paraconsistent AGM-like abductive expansion operation -- capable of assimilating contradictory explanatory hypotheses without trivialization and the consequent absurd epistemic state -- with its postulates and its transitively relational partial meet construction. To a large extent, the formal development presented in this paper was only made possible by the recent creation of the paraconsistent logic RCbr, an LFI (Logics of Formal Inconsistencies) that establishes properties especially relevant to belief revision contexts, in particular, the ability to be self-extensional -- i.e., to satisfy the replacement property. This is the first of two papers: the paraconsistent abductive expansion operation announced here -- which is part of a new system called AGMpabd -- despite bringing many interesting features, does not assign any relevant epistemic role to the paraconsistent operators of negation and consistency. Only in a second paper will an analogous paraconsistent abductive expansion operation -- which is part of another new system, AGMcircabd -- be enhanced in this direction. Nevertheless, to the best of my knowledge, the operation developed in this paper is the first of its kind in the AGM literature.

"Any fool can know; the point is to understand." A well-known remark often attributed to Einstein captures a widely shared intuition: understanding is more than merely knowing. Yet epistemic logic has paid relatively little attention to understanding, despite its central role in contemporary epistemology, philosophy of science, and recent debates about AI. A recurring theme in the philosophical literature is that, unlike knowledge, understanding comes in degrees: one may understand something more or less well, and one's understanding may be better than another's. We introduce a comparative epistemic logic of understanding with level-indexed understanding modalities and a comparative connective for saying that one agent understands why a proposition better than another agent does. Semantically, we enrich multi-agent epistemic models with agent-indexed graded explanation structures and a justification-style term algebra. This yields a unified framework for representing minimal, ordinary, more demanding, and ideal understanding, together with comparisons between agents with respect to the same formula at issue. We distinguish a finitary bounded-level calculus from an infinitary full-language companion system. We establish soundness and strong completeness, and show that each fixed finite-level fragment is decidable.

Distributed knowledge is a notion of group knowledge studied in multi-agent epistemic logic. Semantically, the distributed knowledge of a group is interpreted via an accessibility relation given by the intersection of the epistemic accessibility relations of the agents in that group. This paper investigates sequent calculi for epistemic logics of distributed knowledge based on K45, KD45, and S5. While cut elimination holds in existing sequent calculi for modal logics K45 and KD45, it fails in all the systems mentioned above. Instead, we establish the analytic cut property for all three systems by adapting Takano' s (2018) strategy, which restricts the cut formulas to the set of subformulas of the conclusion of the cut rule. As a corollary, the Craig interpolation theorem holds for all logics considered. We also show that all proof-theoretic results remain valid when the empty group is allowed for the distributed-knowledge operator, in which case the distributed knowledge for the empty group is interpreted as the global modality.

While interpretable models such as concept bottleneck models (CBMs) and program synthesis methods enable verification of model decisions, their evaluation is typically limited to simple tasks, leaving complex reasoning on real-world images largely unexplored. We introduce COCOLogic-V2, an object-centric dataset for visual inductive reasoning on real-world images covering a broad subset of first-order logic. By categorizing samples into positive variants, near-boundary (NB), and far-from-boundary (FB) negatives, COCOLogic-V2 enables fine-grained diagnosis of model accountability. Our evaluations show that models tend to separate positive and FB samples well but fail on NB samples, while perceptual noise and large rule-induced search spaces pose additional challenges in few-shot settings. Together, these results highlight that visual inductive reasoning remains an open challenge and COCOLogic-V2 provides a concrete foundation for advancing methods in this direction.

In today's fast-paced information era, logical fallacies, defined as defective patterns of reasoning, inevitably contribute to the growth of information disorder. However, often fallacies appear in nuanced forms that complicate automated classification. In this study, we investigate whether merging abstract logical structures with context-level linguistic cues proves beneficial for fallacy classification, developing a framework that inductively extracts such patterns from fallacious examples and their explanations using Large Language Models (LLMs). We evaluate the impact of these patterns across different LLMs and experimental zero- and one-shot configurations, showing statistically significant improvements over zero-shot baselines and outperforming competing approaches. Cross-dataset experiments validate generalization, establishing data-driven pattern extraction as an effective method for generating logical representations.

Sphere neural networks have achieved symbolic level syllogistic reasoning without training data, raising the question of where the limit of the scaling law for logical reasoning lies, i.e., whether data-driven machine learning systems can achieve the same level by increasing training data and training time. We show two methodological limitations that prevent supervised deep learning from reaching the symbolic-level syllogistic reasoning: (1) training data can not distinguish all 24 types of valid syllogistic reasoning; (2) end-to-end mapping from premises to conclusion introduces contradictory training targets between neural components for pattern recognition and logical reasoning. Beside theoretical analysis, we experimentally illustrate that Euler Net cannot achieve rigorous syllogistic reasoning. We further challenge the most recent ChatGPTs (GPT-5-nano and GPT-5) to determine the satisfiability of syllogistic statements in four surface forms (patterns): words, double words, simple symbols, and long random symbols, showing that surface forms affect the reasoning performance and that ChatGPT GPT-5 may reach 100% accuracy but still provide incorrect explanations. As empirical training processes are stopped after achieving 100% accuracy, we conclude that supervised machine learning systems will not attain the rigour of symbolic logical reasoning.

In Description Logics (DLs), reasoning under Rational Closure (RC) is a well-known and widely accepted non-monotonic formalism to handle defeasible knowledge. In this paper, we study the application of RC to the core and horn variants of the DL-Lite family of lightweight description logics. We analyze both entitlement (instance checking) and Conjunctive Query (CQ) answering under RC. Our main contribution is providing a plug-in architecture that builds upon existing standard classical reasoners, establishing that reasoning and CQ answering under RC for DL-Lite can be done efficiently with minimal computational overhead.

Logical reasoning is essential for reliable AI, yet existing benchmarks are largely first-order-logic-centric, focusing on object-level deduction over fixed predicates. This misses many realistic scenarios where models must reason over rules, predicates, functions, constraints, and decision procedures themselves. We introduce HOLMES (Higher-Order Logic Meets real-world Explainable Symbolic reasoning), the first real-world benchmark for higher-order symbolic reasoning in LLMs, containing 1379 instances. Built on higher-order logic, HOLMES pairs natural-language problems with HOL formalizations, ground-truth answers, verifiable reasoning traces, and fine-grained controllable reasoning factors across law and finance. Experiments show that current LLMs still struggle on HOLMES, with an average accuracy of only 50.64% and the best model reaching 59.54%. Our analyses further reveal that high final-answer accuracy can mask shortcut reasoning in conflict-resolution settings, while performance drops sharply under scope-conditioned and compositional reasoning. These findings identify higher-order symbolic reasoning as a key bottleneck for building reliable and verifiable LLMs. The project code and dataset are publicly available at https://github.com/wuyucheng2002/HOLMES.

Ontology-mediated query answering is concerned with the problem of answering queries over knowledge bases consisting of a database instance and an ontology. While most work in the area focuses on conjunctive queries (CQs), navigational queries have gained increasing attention. In this paper, we investigate the complexity of answering two-way (conjunctive) regular path queries ((C)RPQs) over knowledge bases whose ontology is given by a set of guarded existential rules. We first consider the subclass of linear existential rules and show that (C)RPQ answering is NL-complete in data complexity, which matches the data complexity of answering RPQs over plain graph databases (i.e., without an ontology). In combined complexity, both tasks are ExpTime-complete in the general case, but RPQ and CRPQ answering drop to PTime-complete and PSpace-complete respectively if there is a bound on predicate arity. For guarded rules, we provide a non-trivial reduction to the linear case, which allows us to show that the complexity of (C)RPQ answering is the same as for CQs, namely 2ExpTime-complete in combined complexity (ExpTime-complete in the bounded-arity case) and PTime-complete in data complexity.

Current evaluations of Large Language Models (LLMs) on logical fallacy detection focus on predicted labels, but do not establish whether those labels are supported by the reasoning the models provide. We propose ForEx (Formal Verification for Explainable Reasoning), a framework that translates LLM-generated explanations into Lean4 and verifies whether the translated rationale is derivable under encoded premises, not the logical validity of the original natural language argument. To distinguish prediction outcomes from the formal status of the supporting reasoning, we introduce the LLM Argument Verification Matrix, which separates label consistency from formal verification status. Experiments on LOGIC-Climate show that over 90% of LLM outputs can be translated into formal reasoning chains that pass verification, while agreement with human annotations remains around 20%. These results expose a systematic gap between formal derivability and label agreement, a distinction invisible to prediction-based metrics. ForEx moves LLM evaluation beyond label correctness toward machine-checkable analysis of formalized reasoning chains.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have made significant progress in reasoning, particularly in deductive reasoning, which is crucial for high-stakes decision-making. As models improve, evaluation benchmarks should evolve to keep pace. However, existing benchmarks lack fine-grained control over logical complexity and struggle to balance semantic diversity with logical consistency. To address these issues, we propose QMFOL, an automated framework for generating monadic first-order logic reasoning tasks with quantifiable and controllable complexity. It constructs formal logical structures using conjunction and disjunction patterns, enabling precise control over reasoning depth, width, label types, and distractors. These structures are then translated into natural language via LLMs, with logical consistency ensured through round-trip verification using an external prover. Based on our framework, we build QMFOLBench, a benchmark comprising 2880 instances with 960 configurations across diverse logical and semantic dimensions. Evaluations on six large reasoning models (LRMs) and two LLMs show that performance degrades and computational overhead increases with rising logical complexity. Models perform better on True-labeled tasks than on False or Unknown ones, and exhibit sensitivity to semantic variation. Overall, QMFOL offers a scalable and reliable approach for constructing deductive reasoning benchmarks with controllable complexity, enabling more precise evaluation of reasoning capabilities in modern language models.

Provenance-enhanced statements of the form "according to $X$, $\varphi$" are pervasive in contemporary knowledge graphs, especially in domains where graph content primarily represents claims, interpretations, and hypotheses (\emph{capta}) rather than observer-independent facts (\emph{data}). Current provenance models can record who asserted what, but they typically treat provenance as semantically neutral, leaving underspecified how attributed claims relate to factual commitment, to one another, and to reasoning. In this paper we introduce DEC, a framework that interprets provenance predicates as indicators of epistemic stance and groups provenance-homogeneous sets of statements into \emph{cognitive worlds}. Drawing on cognitive modal logics (doxastic, epistemic, and conjectural), DEC characterizes locality, rationality, and controlled permeation between cognitive worlds and a distinguished factual core ("reality"), thereby enabling principled reasoning over attributed content without collapsing disagreements into inconsistencies. We formalize a DEC interpretation for RDF datasets that is conservative over RDF~1.2 semantics, clarify the role of intensionality and identity (including the Superman paradox), and illustrate the approach on common Semantic Web representations (named graphs, quoted triples/RDF-star, and reification). Finally, we describe our prototype DEC reasoner implemented as a Fuseki dataset module, supporting controlled factualisation and explicit detection of disagreements and delusions.

Property graphs may be constrained by schemas that inform both query engines and human users about the shape of valid data, enforcing a contract between data provider and consumer. Composable property-graph queries transform input graphs into output graphs. Then, the question arises of which schema can be expected after one (or several) transformation steps. We investigate how schema constraints can be inferred given an input schema and a transforming query. Specifically, we propose a reasoning procedure that, given an input schema in ProGS and a query in G-CORE infers an output schema. Since graph updates will happen frequently, our inference procedure does not rely on graph instances, such that the computed output schema applies to all graphs originating from any input graph complying with the input schema. Related work has addressed this problem for SPARQL CONSTRUCT queries, encoding it in Description Logics (DLs) so that the output schema is entailed by axioms inferred from input schema and queries. Property graphs and their queries, however, complicate the matter, as property graphs feature label and property annotations as well as first-class edges. Thus, reification has to be used in one way or another, though available DLs lack the means to encode such features directly. We approach this novel challenge via a family of mappings for i) property graphs reified in RDF, aligned with ii) a mapping from ProGS to SHACL and iii) a mapping from G-CORE to SPARQL CONSTRUCT queries. In this manner, schema inference for property graphs becomes manageable, as we break apart the problem through the extra mapping layer and utilize efficient DL reasoners. We develop the metatheory regarding the soundness of inferred schema constraints and the semantic equivalence of mapped schemas and queries.

This paper proposes a Situation Calculus solution to the frame problem for obligation-producing actions, which are actions that create obligations on the part of the agent that performs them. As an example of such actions, we have an opening door action performed by an agent, which has the subsequent obligation of getting the door closed. Demolombe and others extend Raymond Reiter's solution to the frame problem for ordinary actions to accommodate obligation-producing actions. Obligation-producing actions do affect the truth value of a newly introduced fluent that captures the accessibility relation used in semantics of obligation modalities in the Situation Calculus. Our work simplifies Demolombe's characterization of the accessibility relation by eliminating the notion of ideality of situations, thereby remaining close to Kripke-style possible-world semantics for deontic logic, in the spirit of Governatori's approach. Furthermore, we spell out details of a complete solution by extending basic action theories of Reiter to the new setting. Finally, we extend Reiter's regression operator for reasoning about actions back to the initial situation to this new setting. Our solution yields intuitive properties that one would expect from obligations: for example, if a sentence is obligatory to an agent in a given situation, it remains so in subsequent situations unless the obligation is explicitly stopped.

The correspondence between large language models (LLMs) and the neural mechanisms underlying human higher-order cognition remains insufficiently characterized. Given that language and reasoning in the human brain appear dissociable, an open question is whether LLMs align with neural signals from reasoning-related regions and whether such signals can improve them. Here, focusing on deductive reasoning, we show that LLM internal representations are not only partially aligned with task-fMRI activity but can also be directly enhanced by these signals. Using a neural-predictivity metric, we find that LLMs explain a substantial fraction of the explainable variance in reasoning-related regions at the aggregate level, whereas predictivity within specific reasoning types is lower, indicating both alignment and divergence. Building on this, we propose a brain-guided framework: we steer model representations along directions induced by the joint structure of model and brain representations, applying intervention at inference and fine-tuning during training. We demonstrate that task-evoked brain signals can directly enhance LLM reasoning, yielding gains orthogonal to language-only supervision across 10 LLMs (1.5B-72B), with transfer across reasoning types and up to 13% absolute accuracy gain. Our results advance LLM-brain correspondences from correlation to guidance, establishing a brain-signal-driven pathway toward more robust and cognitively aligned AI.

Theory of Mind (ToM) reasoning requires inferring agents' beliefs from partial and asymmetric observations, which remains an open challenge for LLMs. Existing prompting-based approaches improve ToM reasoning through observable-event filtering or temporal belief chains, without explicitly modeling nested beliefs. We introduce RecToM, an inference-time framework for ToM reasoning that models nested beliefs via recursive perspective construction. RecToM constructs each character perspective from the preceding character perspective along the character chain specified by the question, reducing higher-order belief questions to actual-world questions within the final constructed perspective. We further provide a KD45 analysis showing that RecToM's perspective construction induces a well-formed belief modality beyond simple event filtering. Experiments on ToM benchmarks, including Hi-ToM, Big-ToM, and FanToM, across multiple LLM backbones show that RecToM consistently outperforms recent advanced approaches, achieving state-of-the-art performance. Notably, RecToM reaches 100% accuracy on Hi-ToM with GPT-5.4 and Qwen3.5, a benchmark requiring higher-order ToM reasoning.

This paper revisits our pipeline called Syllogistic Evaluation Framework-Common Logic Grammar Construction (SEF-CLGC). We combine formal logical notations with Small Language Models (SLMs) to evaluate reasoning performance on the SemEval-2026 Task 11 Subtask 1: Disentangling Content and Formal Reasoning in Large Language Models. Our experiments show that by relying solely on SLMs, trained on a combination of natural and symbolic languages, our best model achieves a content score of 27.80% on the task while significantly lowering the content bias in reasoning.

The Muddy Children Puzzle is a puzzle about knowledge and ignorance that has been inspiring for the development of epistemic logic. Who came up with it first? This is unclear. We trace the origin of the Muddy Children Puzzle through logical and literary publications over the past two centuries. The puzzle inspired a numerous variations such as involving numbers or coloured hats. We also present a novel hats puzzle involving self-reference.

Clinical early warning systems built on irregularly sampled medical time series (ISMTS) from electronic health records must deliver continuous risk scores for patient triage as well as interpretable rationales that clinicians can verify. Large language models (LLMs) are uniquely positioned for both, deriving risk from their output probabilities and rationales from their medical knowledge. However, we find that conventional LLM reasoning collapses graded risk into overconfident predictions and thereby undermines the cross-patient comparability on which triage depends. We refer to this failure mode as risk polarization and identify two underlying behaviors: early commitment to a single outcome, and one-sided reasoning that focuses only on the evidence for that outcome. To address this, we propose TRIAGE, a framework that trains an LLM to reason dialectically over competing clinical outcomes by eliciting outcome-specific rationales. This dialectical formulation mitigates risk polarization, enabling a single LLM to jointly provide explicit clinical rationales and risk scores comparable across patients. Across five ISMTS benchmarks, TRIAGE improves mean AUPRC by 17.0% and reduces mean calibration error by 82.8% relative to the competitive LLM-based baseline, while surpassing the strongest ISMTS baseline by 3.5% in mean AUPRC.

Rule-following agents tasked with executing policies and regulations often fail via Silent Scope Omission (SSO): a model applies a general rule but silently drops nested exceptions or counter-exceptions, producing outputs that appear compliant yet break on important edge cases. Although such failures are often framed as an agentic-systems problem, the underlying bottleneck is statutory and policy understanding, a capability typically studied in legal NLP. However, most existing legal NLP benchmarks emphasize end-task outcomes, which can overlook the structural omissions that cause SSO. To diagnose and mitigate SSO, we introduce NormBench, a benchmark of 2,290 provisions spanning Chinese (laws and local policies), English (U.S. tax law, GDPR, and corporate policies), and cross-lingual settings, designed for defeasible scope parsing: identifying precisely which clause overrides which. NormBench uses Span-Grounded Deontic Trees (SG-DT), a compiler-style intermediate representation that anchors every logical branch to source spans and requires explicit exclusion guards, enabling deterministic compilation and audit. Evaluations of frontier LLMs reveal two recurring pathologies: (1) Recursion Decay, where performance drops sharply as defeater depth increases, and (2) an Auditability Trap, where models retrieve relevant spans but fail to assemble correct control flow. Using SG-DT as a constrained intermediate output improves whole-tree fidelity and defeater recovery, and downstream experiments show that its utility is mechanism-specific: gains concentrate on exception-active, SSO-prone cases, while aggregate accuracy can be mixed when the added structure is unnecessary or parser fidelity is low.

In this paper, we integrate the defeasible logic of Kraus, Lehmann and Magidor (KLM) with the standpoint logic framework of Gómez Álvarez and Rudolph. This is done with the goal of formally expressing knowledge taking into account multiple (possibly contradicting) viewpoints, which in turn may hold defeasible beliefs. In doing so, we utilise Defeasible Restricted Standpoint Logics (DRSL), introduced by Leisegang et al. Our work expands on previous work by providing a foundational representation result for DRSL semantics and systematically lifting several well-known entailment relations from the propositional case to the standpoint-enhanced setting. In particular, we characterise the semantics for DRSL through a set of KLM-style postulates adapted for the standpoints case. We furthermore provide a means to lift preferential entailment, and the class of entailment relations based on single ranking functions from the purely propositional to the standpoint-enhanced context, including rational and lexicographic closure. We show this can be done equivalently through semantic and algorithmic means. Furthermore, we show that, for each considered form of entailment, the complexity class of entailment checking does not change when moving from propositional KLM to DRSL.

We investigate the extent to which the language processing of LLMs resembles human cognitive processes, focusing on a human cognitive bias called the $\textit{neglect-zero effect}$. This effect refers to the human tendency to ignore $\textit{zero-models}$, which are configurations that render a proposition vacuously true by virtue of an empty set. We focus on two types of inferences driven by the neglect-zero effect, and examine how LLMs process these inferences by comparing their behavior with that in an inference that does not involve the neglect-zero effect. For this purpose, we employ a paradigm based on $\textit{structural priming}$, where recent exposure to a preceding sentence (the $\textit{prime}$) facilitates the processing of a subsequent sentence (the $\textit{target}$) due to their structural similarity. We prepare primes to force LLMs to consider the zero-model, and analyze whether they also consider it in the target. The results suggest that the neglect-zero effect may not occur in the LLMs analyzed in this study. Our code is available at https://github.com/ynklab/neglect_zero

Deontic reasoning is the task of answering questions by applying explicit rules and policies to case-specific facts, for example computing tax liability under a statute or determining the outcome of an immigration appeal. A key technical challenge for LLM-based deontic reasoning is that the relevant ruleset can be long and cross-referenced, so models may still fail to locate the rules needed for a particular reasoning step. We introduce Deontic Agentic Reasoning (DAR), an agentic reasoning setup in which the model interacts with the statutes on demand. We evaluate DAR under multiple harnesses on hard subsets of DeonticBench. Across these settings, we find that agentic harnesses can push the frontier on deontic reasoning tasks, but improvements are not uniform: weaker models often degrade on numerical tasks while consuming far more tokens.

Technical-standard compliance reasoning may involve incomplete evidence, inconsistent observations, exceptions, and derived normative outputs. This paper presents \textsc{Monir}, a four-valued normative intermediate representation for ASP-oriented compliance workflows. \textsc{Monir} separates factual support from normative outputs: facts are represented by positive and negative support bits, while deontic labels are rule-generated output constructors interpreted by aggregation policies. Its core semantics is a staged transition system over support configurations. We define the language, rule-state interface, diagnostics, and policy-parametric reporting; characterize admissible staged evaluation by a dependency graph; prove deterministic polynomial-time evaluation for fixed evidence; and give NP/coNP upper bounds, with matching hardness for representative completion-based verdict queries.

Large reasoning models (LRMs) are often evaluated using metrics such as final-answer accuracy or token count. However, identical scores on these metrics can hide fundamentally different reasoning structures. To address this limitation, we introduce a scalable LRM benchmark of logic puzzles and a pipeline that converts unstructured traces into verifiable reasoning graphs of claims and dependencies. This turns reasoning into a structured, measurable object whose topology can be quantitatively analyzed. Building on this, we define a reasoning efficiency metric that quantifies how concentrated the model's logical flow is. Our analysis on open-source reasoning models shows that structural measurements separate behaviors that token count and accuracy conflate, providing a practical tool for diagnosing failure modes and comparing how reasoning scales with puzzle difficulty.

Recent work in defeasible reasoning has seen notions of preferential semantics and entailment in the style of Kraus et al. applied to modal logics. However, work in this field has focussed primarily on satisfiability checking, and monotonic notions of entailment, which may be inferentially weak. One particular modal logic where this has been introduced is propositional standpoint logics, where modalities can express the views of different viewpoints. This has resulted in the formalisation of propositional defeasible standpoint logic (PDSL). In this paper, we propose a means of lifting the class of (non-monotonic) rational entailment relations from traditional KLM-style reasoning to a fragment of PDSL. In order to do so, we extend the expressivity of PDSL via situated standpoint conditionals, allowing us to talk about a defeasible conditional holding in the context of a given standpoint. This allows us to re-characterise the syntax of PDSL in terms of situated conditionals, and shows that a large fragment of PDSL is expressible as a set of situated conditionals. We then focus on characterising non-monotonic entailment in this fragment, defining a method to transport any ranking-based entailment relation from the propositional case into the PDSL case. This is first described in the general case and then considered in the specific cases of rational and lexicographic closures, providing a faithful translation of each inference into PDSL. We also show that entailment-checking in this fragment of PDSL can be done largely using algorithms from the propositional case, while preserving complexity bounds.

We propose ZX-Calculus (Knowledge Evolution Calculus), a conservative extension of Martin-Lof Dependent Type Theory (MLTT) integrating trace-indexed types, presheaf non-monotone semantics, and constructive AGM belief revision. A Coq mechanisation accompanies the paper (34 complete proofs; zero admits for the two central results). (I) Trace types. FinTrace(s0,sn) is an inductive family of typed execution traces. FinTrace and Star(Step) are isomorphic as path types but not judgementally equal; TraceElim exposes the event label e:Event explicitly, giving a more ergonomic interface for event-driven induction. We prove the Trace-Reachability Correspondence, Deterministic Replay, and a canonicity framework via reducibility candidates with a Transport Lemma (RC-elim deferred; all other Core results are Coq-verified). (II) Sheaf semantics. Trace-indexed propositions are contravariant sheaves over the free trace partial-order category Tf. A Separation Theorem (explicit countermodel) distinguishes proof-theoretic monotonicity from semantic non-monotonicity. The term model is an initial CwF (syntactic universal property, not classical completeness). (III) AGM belief revision. We give an explicit constructive partial meet contraction algorithm verified against (C1)-(C4). All eight AGM postulates (R1)-(R8) are theorems. Proofs of R7 and R8 use the Disjunctive Entrenchment Lemma, given a self-contained constructive derivation. (IV) Integration. B^AGM fails the sheaf composition law BP-comp for sequential revision (explicit countermodel, Coq-verified). We introduce Single-Step Revision Systems (SSRS), prove B^AGM is a valid SSRS (Coq-verified), and show this suffices for trace morphisms, retraction characterisation, and revision witnesses. The BP-comp failure reveals a fundamental tension between path-dependent belief revision and functor consistency, not previously identified.

The TimeLogic Challenge evaluates formal temporal-logic reasoning over video - 16 operators (before, after, until, since, always, co-occur, ordering, ...) in boolean and 4-way multiple-choice form. End-to-end video-language models (VLMs) hover near chance on this task because they treat video as a bag of frames and cannot localize when actions occur. We present TLG (Temporal-Logic Grounding), a three-tier system that (i) reconstructs each video's action timeline from the public source-dataset annotations the benchmark was generated from, parses every question into a temporal-logic program, and executes it deterministically; (ii) falls back to a strong open VLM where no annotation exists; and (iii) routes only the question categories where the VLM is empirically weakest to a frontier reasoning model. TLG raises test accuracy from a 46.9% VLM baseline to 71.37%, a +24.5 absolute gain, reaching within 3 points of the leaderboard top. We report extensive ablations, including three model-based timeline-reconstruction variants that all underperform a holistic VLM, isolating temporal grounding as the irreducible bottleneck and showing that real annotations - not larger models - drive accuracy.