mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Formal Reasoning for Intelligent QA Systems: A Case Study in the Educational Domain

arXiv 2509.11572 ↗First posted 15 Sep 2025cs.AI cs.CLcited by 0

On the map: LLM reasoning → Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation

Abstract (arXiv)

Reasoning is essential for closed-domain QA systems in which procedural correctness and policy compliance are critical. While large language models (LLMs) have shown strong performance on many reasoning tasks, recent work reveals that their reasoning traces are often unfaithful - serving more as plausible justifications than as causally grounded derivations. Efforts to combine LLMs with symbolic engines (e.g., Prover9, Z3) have improved reliability but remain limited to static forms of logic, struggling with dynamic, state-based reasoning such as multi-step progressions and conditional transitions. In this paper, we propose MCFR (Model Checking for Formal Reasoning), a neuro-symbolic framework that integrates LLMs with model checking to support property verification. MCFR translates natural language into formal specifications and verifies them over transition models. To support evaluation, we introduce EduMC-QA, a benchmark dataset grounded in real academic procedures. Our results show that MCFR improves reasoning faithfulness and interpretability, offering a viable path toward verifiable QA in high-stakes closed-domain applications. In addition to evaluating MCFR, we compare its performance with state-of-the-art LLMs such as ChatGPT, DeepSeek, and Claude to contextualize its effectiveness.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 8 of its 11 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 Sep 2025.

Builds on

8 of 11 references.

Closest ancestors · 1

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2023Logic-LM: Empowering Large Language Models with Symbolic Solvers for Faithful Logical Reasoning20 May

Other references · 7

  1. 2022Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasonerscited by 4,374
  2. 2023Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Promptingcited by 1,122
  3. 2019The Neuro-Symbolic Concept Learner: Interpreting Scenes, Words, and Sentences From Natural Supervisioncited by 372
  4. 2023SelfCheck: Using LLMs to Zero-Shot Check Their Own Step-by-Step Reasoningcited by 159
  5. 2024Large Language Models Can Solve Real-World Planning Rigorously with Formal Verification Toolscited by 47
  6. 2025Walk the Talk? Measuring the Faithfulness of Large Language Model Explanationscited by 45
  7. 2024Logic-of-Thought: Injecting Logic into Contexts for Full Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 23

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Pushing the Boundaries of Natural Reasoning: Interleaved Bonus from Formal-Logic Verification
  2. 2024LOGIC-LM++: Multi-Step Refinement for Symbolic Formulations
  3. 2026Beyond Surface Forms: Symbolic Edits as a Test for Logical Reasoning with LLMs
  4. 2025Can Large Language Models Learn Formal Logic? A Data-Driven Training and Evaluation Framework
  5. 2026LogicSkills: A Structured Benchmark for Formal Reasoning in Large Language Models
  6. 2022Evaluating Step-by-Step Reasoning through Symbolic Verification
  7. 2025From Informal to Formal -- Incorporating and Evaluating LLMs on Natural Language Requirements to Verifiable Formal Proofs
  8. 2025Speaking in Words, Thinking in Logic: A Dual-Process Framework in QA Systems