# Robustness of Neurosymbolic Reasoners on First-Order Logic Problems

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.17377 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.17377/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 13 of its 16 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 22 Sep 2025.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reasoning-benchmarks-and-evaluation/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 13 of 13)

- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [PaLM: Scaling Language Modeling with Pathways](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.02311/) (2022)
- [Zero-Shot Text-to-Image Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.12092/) (2021)
- [Solving Quantitative Reasoning Problems with Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.14858/) (2022)
- [GSM-Symbolic: Understanding the Limitations of Mathematical Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.05229/) (2024)
- [Logic-LM: Empowering Large Language Models with Symbolic Solvers for Faithful Logical Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.12295/) (2023)
- [Reasoning or Reciting? Exploring the Capabilities and Limitations of Language Models Through Counterfactual Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.02477/) (2023)
- [LINC: A Neurosymbolic Approach for Logical Reasoning by Combining Language Models with First-Order Logic Provers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.15164/) (2023)
- [Making Reasoning Matter: Measuring and Improving Faithfulness of Chain-of-Thought Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.13950/) (2024)
- [SatLM: Satisfiability-Aided Language Models Using Declarative Prompting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.09656/) (2023)
- [MATH-Perturb: Benchmarking LLMs' Math Reasoning Abilities against Hard Perturbations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.06453/) (2025)
- [A Peek into Token Bias: Large Language Models Are Not Yet Genuine Reasoners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.11050/) (2024)
- [Counterfactual reasoning: Testing language models' understanding of hypothetical scenarios](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.16572/) (2023)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Instruct, Not Answer: Using Instruction Privileges in On-Policy Context Distillation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.32201/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Recent trends in NLP aim to improve reasoning capabilities in Large Language Models (LLMs), with key focus on generalization and robustness to variations in tasks. Counterfactual task variants introduce minimal but semantically meaningful changes to otherwise valid first-order logic (FOL) problem instances altering a single predicate or swapping roles of constants to probe whether a reasoning system can maintain logical consistency under perturbation. Previous studies showed that LLMs becomes brittle on counterfactual variations, suggesting that they often rely on spurious surface patterns to generate responses. In this work, we explore if a neurosymbolic (NS) approach that integrates an LLM and a symbolic logical solver could mitigate this problem. Experiments across LLMs of varying sizes show that NS methods are more robust but perform worse overall that purely neural methods. We then propose NSCoT that combines an NS method and Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting and demonstrate that while it improves performance, NSCoT still lags behind standard CoT. Our analysis opens research directions for future work.