Moxia: A Trust-First Neuro-Symbolic Execution Architecture for Self-Explaining Mathematical Reasoning
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
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 9,743
- 2021Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Datasetcited by 5,203
- 2024Qwen2.5 Technical Reportcited by 4,713
- 2023Let's Verify Step by Stepcited by 3,598
- 2023Llemma: An Open Language Model For Mathematicscited by 385
- 2024TrustLLM: Trustworthiness in Large Language Modelscited by 280
- 2021From Statistical Relational to Neurosymbolic Artificial Intelligence: a Surveycited by 72
- 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
- 2026Artificial Intelligence for Mathematical Reasoning: An Integrated Survey of Language Models, Neuro-symbolic Systems, and Verified Discovery
- 2026NeuroProlog: Multi-Task Fine-Tuning for Neurosymbolic Mathematical Reasoning via the Cocktail Effect
- 2025SymCode: A Neurosymbolic Approach to Mathematical Reasoning via Verifiable Code Generation
- 2025Constructing a Neuro-Symbolic Mathematician from First Principles
- 2023Frugal LMs Trained to Invoke Symbolic Solvers Achieve Parameter-Efficient Arithmetic Reasoning
- 2023Reasoning in Large Language Models Through Symbolic Math Word Problems
- 2023LINC: A Neurosymbolic Approach for Logical Reasoning by Combining Language Models with First-Order Logic Provers
- 2026Neuro-symbolic PRM: Enhancing Scientific Reasoning via Structured Traces and Symbolic Verification