# Revealing Algorithmic Deductive Circuits for Logical Reasoning

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.27824 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.27824/

## 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 21 of its 24 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 27 May 2026.

## Placed in

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

## Builds on (most cited first, 21 of 21)

- [Attention Is All You Need](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03762/) (2017)
- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.03300/) (2020)
- [Locating and Editing Factual Associations in GPT](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.05262/) (2022)
- [Interpretability in the Wild: a Circuit for Indirect Object Identification in GPT-2 small](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.00593/) (2022)
- [Logic-LM: Empowering Large Language Models with Symbolic Solvers for Faithful Logical Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.12295/) (2023)
- [Language Models Are Greedy Reasoners: A Systematic Formal Analysis of Chain-of-Thought](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.01240/) (2022)
- [ProofWriter: Generating Implications, Proofs, and Abductive Statements over Natural Language](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2012.13048/) (2020)
- [Direct and Indirect Effects](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1301.2300/) (2013)
- [LINC: A Neurosymbolic Approach for Logical Reasoning by Combining Language Models with First-Order Logic Provers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.15164/) (2023)
- [SatLM: Satisfiability-Aided Language Models Using Declarative Prompting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.09656/) (2023)
- [Faithful Logical Reasoning via Symbolic Chain-of-Thought](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.18357/) (2024)
- [DetermLR: Augmenting LLM-based Logical Reasoning from Indeterminacy to Determinacy](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.18659/) (2023)
- [Reasoning Circuits in Language Models: A Mechanistic Interpretation of Syllogistic Inference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.08590/) (2024)
- [Improving Chain-of-Thought Reasoning via Quasi-Symbolic Abstractions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.12616/) (2025)
- [A Implies B: Circuit Analysis in LLMs for Propositional Logical Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.04105/) (2024)
- [Does Time Have Its Place? Temporal Heads: Where Language Models Recall Time-specific Information](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.14258/) (2025)
- [SymBa: Symbolic Backward Chaining for Structured Natural Language Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.12806/) (2024)
- [Non-Interactive Symbolic-Aided Chain-of-Thought for Logical Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.12425/) (2025)
- [Improving Chain-of-Thought for Logical Reasoning via Attention-Aware Intervention](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.09805/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Recent studies have shown that Large Language Models (LLMs) can achieve strong reasoning performance by incorporating functional symbolic representations that abstractly describe graph traversal algorithms and step-by-step reasoning in few-shot learning settings. However, it remains unclear how LLMs genuinely understand the abstract meaning of each reasoning step and the overall algorithm from only a limited number of demonstrations. This work aims to localize the attention heads responsible for individual reasoning steps and characterize the types of information transferred among them. We first align constituent reasoning steps with their corresponding token logits under a symbolic-aided Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting framework. Our analysis shows that token positions that steer the reasoning process are associated with low confidence scores caused by constraints on satisfying reasoning behavior patterns in demonstrations. We then adopt causal mediation analysis techniques to identify the attention heads responsible for these patterns. In addition, our findings indicate that LLMs retrieve factual and rule-based information for individual sub-reasoning tasks through specialized attention heads (approximately 3% total heads), whereas higher layers predominantly facilitate information integration and the emergence of global reasoning strategies (e.g., graph traversal algorithms) that coordinate multiple intermediate reasoning steps to solve the overall task.