mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Moxia: A Trust-First Neuro-Symbolic Execution Architecture for Self-Explaining Mathematical Reasoning

arXiv 2606.00671 ↗First posted 30 May 2026cs.AI cs.CL cs.LGcited by 0

On the map: LLM reasoning → Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation

Abstract (arXiv)

We present Moxia (formerly AXIOM), a trust-first neuro-symbolic architecture for self-explaining mathematical reasoning over natural-language input. Its language model is strictly a canonicalizer: it rewrites informal problem text into a narrow schema consumed by a deterministic Computer-Algebra-System (CAS) pipeline, which derives and verifies the answer or abstains as a first-class output. Routing follows a 1:1:1 alignment of problem-shape regex, schema-specific prompt, and closed-form CAS handler, with 4,783 routes shipped, 71% of which answer without invoking the language model, and zero LOST_CORRECT regressions as a standing release gate. Because the answer is derived rather than generated, so is its explanation: every handler emits a step trace of the computation it performed, rendered as prose by a layer covering all 4,785 task files that cannot narrate a step the handler did not take. Derivations export to Lean 4 as well: 479 task files (10%) emit a theorem from the problem's declared data, 445 accepted by the Lean kernel with Mathlib; that gate covers a fixture corpus, so live output is generated, not machine-checked. We report two numbers and never fuse them. On the full 7-category MATH test split, designed against, Moxia answers 90.2% (4,510/5,000) with one confident-wrong answer (99.98% trust on parseable). On held-out MATH-500, never designed against, it answers 89.2% (446/500) with zero confident-wrong answers. The 1.0 pp gap is the substantive result: a registry that had merely memorized problem shapes would collapse on held-out data, and this one does not. The rule-only path answers the 20,000-record lm-eval arithmetic benchmark at 100%, 1 ms per record. What we emphasize is not an accuracy figure but the forward dynamic: every logged abstain is a candidate correct after one ship cycle, since new tasks compose without regressing the registry.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 8 of its 14 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 May 2026.

Builds on

8 of 14 references.

References · 8

  1. 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 9,743
  2. 2021Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Datasetcited by 5,203
  3. 2024Qwen2.5 Technical Reportcited by 4,713
  4. 2023Let's Verify Step by Stepcited by 3,598
  5. 2023Llemma: An Open Language Model For Mathematicscited by 385
  6. 2024TrustLLM: Trustworthiness in Large Language Modelscited by 280
  7. 2021From Statistical Relational to Neurosymbolic Artificial Intelligence: a Surveycited by 72
  8. 2024Lean Copilot: Large Language Models as Copilots for Theorem Proving in Leancited by 52

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Artificial Intelligence for Mathematical Reasoning: An Integrated Survey of Language Models, Neuro-symbolic Systems, and Verified Discovery
  2. 2026NeuroProlog: Multi-Task Fine-Tuning for Neurosymbolic Mathematical Reasoning via the Cocktail Effect
  3. 2025SymCode: A Neurosymbolic Approach to Mathematical Reasoning via Verifiable Code Generation
  4. 2025Constructing a Neuro-Symbolic Mathematician from First Principles
  5. 2023Frugal LMs Trained to Invoke Symbolic Solvers Achieve Parameter-Efficient Arithmetic Reasoning
  6. 2023Reasoning in Large Language Models Through Symbolic Math Word Problems
  7. 2023LINC: A Neurosymbolic Approach for Logical Reasoning by Combining Language Models with First-Order Logic Provers
  8. 2026Neuro-symbolic PRM: Enhancing Scientific Reasoning via Structured Traces and Symbolic Verification