Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

The Knowledge-Reasoning Dissociation: Fundamental Limitations of LLMs in Clinical Natural Language Inference

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read LLMs hold clinical facts yet fail to deploy them in reasoning; a new probe makes the gap explicit.

desk verdict A useful paired-probe design and a plausible dissociation, but the central accuracy numbers rest on an internally inconsistent label set and no released data; worth major revision, not acceptance. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.10777 v1 pith:2NVMSY3B submitted 2025-08-14 cs.AI

Maël Jullien , Marco Valentino , André Freitas This is my paper
classification cs.AI
keywords clinicalnaturallanguageinferenceknowledge-reasoningdissociationGKMRVLLMreasoningcompositionalgroundingcausalattributionepistemicverificationriskstateabstraction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tests the assumption that scaling data and parameters gives LLMs structured, generalizable reasoning. It introduces a clinical trial natural language inference benchmark with four reasoning families, each paired with a GKMRV probe that checks whether the model knows the relevant facts independently of performing the inference. Across six models, GKMRV accuracy averages 0.918 while main-task accuracy averages 0.25; outputs are highly consistent (0.87), showing systematic heuristics rather than random errors. The authors conclude that current LLMs possess the relevant clinical knowledge but lack the composable internal representations needed to integrate constraints, weigh evidence, and simulate counterfactuals.

What carries the argument

The GKMRV probe (Ground Knowledge and Meta-Level Reasoning Verification). Each main task item is paired with two probes: one states a correct application or recognition of the relevant domain fact, the other states an incorrect application. The probe asks whether the statement is True or False. This decouples 'does the model know the fact?' from 'does the model reason correctly with it?' The formal frameworks (do-calculus, possible-worlds semantics, epistemic logic, expected-utility risk) define what correct reasoning would be, but the GKMRV probe is the instrument that makes the dissociation explicit and measurable.

What would settle it

Re-annotate the 40 main-task items with independent clinical experts; if a substantial fraction of labeled 'contradiction' items are actually 'neutral' (as Section 5 suggests for Causal Attribution), the reported 0.25 mean accuracy and the dissociation could shrink or vanish.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a measurable dissociation between factual access and inferential deployment in LLMs. On GKMRV probes—which ask models to verify a fact or a meta-level statement about a clinical case—models are near-ceiling (mean 0.918). On the paired main NLI tasks, which require applying that same knowledge to an entailment/contradiction/neutral decision, the same models average 0.25, with Compositional Grounding collapsing to 0.04. The errors are not stochastic: models give the same (wrong) label across completions 87% of the time. This points to a structural representational deficit: the models encode the rules but lack the machinery to compose them in context.

Load-bearing premise

The main-task gold labels are correct; in particular, the template's assigned labels (e.g., 'contradiction' for the single-arm causal items) match the logically correct answer.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the paper is right, scaling data and parameters alone is insufficient to produce reliable clinical reasoning.
  • Benchmark accuracy on NLI tasks can be high while reasoning is heuristic, so evaluation must separate knowledge from inference.
  • Interventions should target representational structure—compositional, causal, epistemic—rather than more data.
  • Chain-of-thought prompting does not fix the gap (+0.03 overall) and sometimes hurts performance.
  • Confidence and consistency do not indicate correctness; models are confidently and systematically wrong.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • I infer the dissociation may generalize beyond clinical text to any domain where reasoning requires joint constraint satisfaction or counterfactual simulation: the failure is representational, not domain-specific.
  • A testable extension: if the deficit is structural, rephrasing the main task so the reasoning is explicit (e.g., asking 'what would have to be true for this to follow?') should improve accuracy without new knowledge; if it doesn't, the bottleneck is not format but representation.
  • The near-ceiling GKMRV scores are themselves meta-level reasoning tasks, so the paper's inference that knowledge possession is intact is partly assumed; a model that scores 0.918 on GKMRV is reasoning at the meta-level, so the 'knowledge vs reasoning' split is not clean.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a Clinical Trial Natural Language Inference (CTNLI) benchmark with four reasoning families — Causal Attribution, Compositional Grounding, Epistemic Verification, and Risk State Abstraction — each instantiated through parameterized templates. Each item is paired with a Ground Knowledge and Meta-Level Reasoning Verification (GKMRV) probe, intended to separate factual access from inferential deployment. The authors evaluate six LLMs under direct and chain-of-thought prompting and report a striking dissociation: near-ceiling GKMRV accuracy (mean 0.918) versus low main-task accuracy (mean 0.25), with high consistency across completions. They conclude that current LLMs possess relevant clinical knowledge but lack structured, composable internal representations needed for reliable clinical inference, and that scaling alone is insufficient.

Significance. If the empirical result is sound, the paper addresses a question of central importance in clinical NLP and LLM evaluation: whether apparent competence reflects knowledge possession or robust reasoning. The benchmark design is valuable in principle — pairing reasoning items with targeted knowledge probes is a more diagnostic methodology than aggregate accuracy alone, and the formal semantics (possible-worlds NLI, do-calculus, epistemic logic) gives a clear intended interpretation of each task. The paper is also commendably candid about its limitations (Appendix A.1), and the qualitative examples of model failures are instructive. However, the central numerical claim is not currently established because the gold labels contain an internal contradiction, and because neither the data nor the scoring code are released. The headline dissociation and the 'fundamental limitations' conclusion depend on exactly those numbers, so the contribution is at present more of a promising framework than a verified empirical result.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5 vs. Table 1] The gold-label definition for Causal Attribution is internally inconsistent. Table 1 labels the template '[drug] causes/improves ...' as 'contradiction', but Section 5 presents the same template (silver sulfadiazine, 40% healing) and explicitly treats a 'neutral' output as correct: 'Thus, acceleration cannot be inferred. output: neutral.' Under the paper's own formal semantics (Section 2), the correct label is neutral: the premise does not entail the causal claim, but a world in which the drug accelerates healing is perfectly consistent with the observed 40% response rate, so the premise and statement are not jointly unsatisfiable. If the evaluation script used Table 1's 'contradiction', every neutral completion on this template was scored as an error; if it used Section 5's interpretation, Table 1 is wrong. Causal Attribution is the best-performing main task (average 0.49), and there ar
  2. [Section 8, Risk State Abstraction] A second instance of the same label problem appears in the pneumonia example. The paper labels 'Pneumonia is ruled out for this patient' as CONTRADICTION, arguing that pneumonia has nonzero probability and high harm if missed. Under Section 2's definition, however, this is neutral, not contradiction: the premise (mild fever, renal-angle pain, no cough) does not entail that pneumonia is ruled out, but it also does not make 'pneumonia is ruled out' false in every clinically admissible world — a world with additional negative imaging is consistent with the premise. Unless WCT is explicitly stipulated to exclude such worlds (which the paper does not state), the label conflates 'not entailed' with 'contradicted'. This suggests a systematic gold-label generation problem in more than one task family, further undermining the reliability of the reported accuracy numbers.
  3. [Section 3.2, GKMRV as a knowledge probe] The claim that GKMRV isolates 'possession of relevant clinical ground knowledge' from reasoning is not supported by the task design. Section 3.2 describes GKMRV as requiring meta-level reasoning verification — determining whether a statement correctly applies clinical knowledge. That is itself an inference task, albeit one that is arguably simpler or more explicitly prompted. High GKMRV accuracy could therefore reflect easier reasoning, surface format, or instruction salience rather than the presence of declarative knowledge per se. The dissociation between near-ceiling GKMRV and low main-task accuracy may be an artifact of task difficulty rather than evidence for a structural knowledge–reasoning gap. A concrete control would be to add direct factual-recall probes with matched lexical content and no verification step (e.g., 'Metformin is contraindicated at eGFR 25 mL/min/1.73m²: True/Fal
  4. [Appendix A.1, 'Benchmark scope and size'] The paper does not release its data, templates, full item list, model completions, or scoring code. For a benchmark paper whose central claim is a quantitative dissociation (0.918 vs. 0.25), this is a major obstacle to verification. The Limitations section correctly notes that ten items per family limits statistical power, but that limitation is compounded by the absence of any public artifact: even the gold-label inconsistency in Table 1 cannot be resolved by consulting the released materials because they do not exist. The authors should release the dataset with corrected labels, the evaluation scripts, and the model outputs, or at least include the full instantiated item set in an appendix.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.4] Typo: 'CNLI' should be 'CTNLI' (or 'Clinical NLI').
  2. [Abstract / Section 4] The abstract and Section 4 describe GKMRV accuracy as 'near-ceiling' despite LLaMA 3.2 scoring as low as 0.56 in Table 5. The summary statistic is correct, but 'near-ceiling' is an overstatement for the full model set; a qualification such as 'high for most proprietary models' would be more accurate.
  3. [Table 4] For Risk State Abstraction setting (b), the label is conditional ('entailment iff decision reflects optimal risk reasoning; otherwise contradiction'). This is not a deterministic template label. The paper should specify how this condition was operationalized for the ten instantiated items.
  4. [Figure 1] Figure 1 labels the task 'Risk Abstraction' while the text consistently uses 'Risk State Abstraction'. Use one name throughout.
  5. [Appendix A.1 vs. Abstract/Conclusion] The Limitations section says conclusions 'should be viewed as indicative rather than definitive', but the abstract and conclusion use stronger language ('fundamental structural and representational limitations', 'scaling alone is insufficient'). Please align the strength of the claims with the stated limitations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the knowledge-reasoning dissociation is an empirical comparison of two independently scored measurements, not a derived identity.

full rationale

The paper is an empirical evaluation, not a formal derivation chain. The headline claim—near-ceiling GKMRV accuracy (0.918) vs. low main-task accuracy (0.25)—is a comparison of two separately measured quantities reported in Table 5, using different prompts (Tables 8–11). Neither accuracy is fitted from the other, no parameters are estimated from a subset and then called a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or formal result is imported from the authors' prior work to force the conclusion. The authors' prior publications (Jullien et al. 2023, 2024; Valentino et al. 2023, 2025) appear only as contextual related work or future-work suggestions, not as load-bearing justification for the dissociation. The Limitations section explicitly flags the small benchmark size (10 items per family), strict three-way labels, and model opacity; these are reliability and validity concerns, not circularity. Two caveats are worth stating clearly, but neither constitutes circularity under the specified criteria. First, the GKMRV probe is itself described as requiring 'meta-level reasoning verification' (Section 3.2), so high GKMRV accuracy does not by itself prove that models possess knowledge independent of all reasoning; this is a construct-validity threat, not an equation reducing the conclusion to its inputs. Second, the Causal Attribution template's gold label appears inconsistent between Table 1 ('contradiction') and Section 5 ('output: neutral' for the same logical structure); if the evaluation script used the Table 1 labels, reported accuracy could be deflated. That is a data-quality issue, not a circular step. No quoted passage in the paper exhibits a derivation in which the predicted quantity equals an input by definition. The finding is an empirical observation, so the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the benchmark labels and on the interpretation of GKMRV as a knowledge test. The first is internally inconsistent (Table 1 vs Section 5), and the second is a domain assumption that is not independently verified. No free parameters are fitted.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Clinical NLI can be modeled as entailment over a set of protocol-compliant possible worlds (Section 2).
    Defines the label semantics; if this model does not match how clinicians judge the statements, the gold labels are not well grounded.
  • domain assumption The four reasoning families are core components of clinical inference (Section 3.1).
    Justifies why these four tasks measure clinical reasoning at all; no independent evidence is offered for this decomposition.
  • domain assumption GKMRV probes separate factual access from inference, so near-ceiling GKMRV accuracy means the models possess the relevant knowledge (Section 3.2).
    GKMRV is itself a meta-level verification task, so it is not a pure memory test; the interpretation of the dissociation depends on this assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper The gold labels in the generated templates are correct (Tables 1-4).
    Table 1 labels causal attribution items as 'contradiction', while Section 5 treats 'neutral' as the correct response for the same template type; this assumption is contradicted by the paper's own example.
invented entities (1)
  • GKMRV probe
    purpose: A paired True/False statement designed to test factual knowledge and meta-level verification independently of the main NLI task.
    The probe is constructed and interpreted by the authors; no external test establishes that it isolates knowledge from reasoning.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Knowledge-Reasoning Dissociation: Fundamental Limitations of LLMs in Clinical Natural Language Inference." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2NVMSY3B

@misc{pith2026250810777,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Knowledge-Reasoning Dissociation: Fundamental Limitations of LLMs in Clinical Natural Language Inference},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2NVMSY3B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.10777}
}
read the original abstract

Large language models are often assumed to acquire increasingly structured, generalizable internal representations simply by scaling data and parameters. We interrogate this assumption by introducing a Clinical Trial Natural Language Inference benchmark comprising four reasoning families, Causal Attribution, Compositional Grounding, Epistemic Verification, and Risk State Abstraction. Each item is paired with a targeted Ground Knowledge and Meta-Level Reasoning Verification (GKMRV) probe, allowing us to dissociate failures of factual access from failures of inference. We evaluate six contemporary LLMs under both direct and chain of thought prompting. Models achieve near-ceiling GKMRV accuracy (mean accuracy 0.918) yet perform poorly on the main reasoning tasks (mean accuracy 0.25). Despite low accuracy, output inferences are highly consistent across samples (mean 0.87), indicating a systematic application of underlying heuristics and shortcuts. These results reveal fundamental structural and representational limitations: current LLMs often possess the relevant clinical knowledge but lack the structured, composable internal representations needed to deploy it reliably (e.g., integrating constraints, weighing evidence, or simulating counterfactuals). Decoupling knowledge from reasoning with GKMRV makes this dissociation explicit and measurable, providing an effective framework for probing the reliability of LLMs in high-stakes domains.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.10777 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Representative examples of clinical reasoning tasks, and ground knowledge and meta-level reasoning [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Accuracy gap between main task performance and GKMRV accuracy, across four tasks. Values closer to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. CLExEval: A Human-in-the-Loop Framework for Qualitative Evaluation of LLM Clinical Reasoning

    cs.CL 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    CLExEval introduces a human-annotated evaluation framework on 40 rare cases that identifies verbosity bias, hidden knowledge paradox, and 68.6% reasoning-to-output mismatch in LLMs while showing LLM-as-a-Judge overest...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    David M Blei, Alp Kucukelbir, and Jon D McAuliffe. 2017. Variational inference: A review for statisticians. Journal of the American statistical Association, 112(518):859--877

    2017

  2. [2]

    Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877--1901

    2020

  3. [3]

    S \'e bastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, Johannes Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Scott Lundberg, et al. 2023. Sparks of artificial general intelligence: Early experiments with gpt-4. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.12712

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Diego Calanzone, Stefano Teso, and Antonio Vergari. 2024. Logically consistent language models via neuro-symbolic integration. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.13724

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Bob Carpenter, Andrew Gelman, Matthew D Hoffman, Daniel Lee, Ben Goodrich, Michael Betancourt, Marcus Brubaker, Jiqiang Guo, Peter Li, and Allen Riddell. 2017. Stan: A probabilistic programming language. Journal of statistical software, 76:1--32

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Nick Chater, Joshua B Tenenbaum, and Alan Yuille. 2006. Probabilistic models of cognition: Conceptual foundations. Trends in cognitive sciences, 10(7):287--291

    work page 2006

  7. [7]

    Hailin Chen, Fangkai Jiao, Mathieu Ravaut, Nawshad Farruque, Xuan Phi Nguyen, Chengwei Qin, Manan Dey, Bosheng Ding, Caiming Xiong, Shafiq Joty, et al. 2024. Structtest: Benchmarking llms' reasoning through compositional structured outputs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.18011

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Noam Chomsky. 1972. Studies on semantics in generative grammar, volume 107. Walter de Gruyter

    work page 1972

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Gheorghe Comanici, Eric Bieber, Mike Schaekermann, Ice Pasupat, Noveen Sachdeva, Inderjit Dhillon, Marcel Blistein, Ori Ram, Dan Zhang, Evan Rosen, et al. 2025. Gemini 2.5: Pushing the frontier with advanced reasoning, multimodality, long context, and next generation agentic c...

    2025 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Amy Yang, Angela Fan, et al. 2024. The llama 3 herd of models. arXiv e-prints, pages arXiv--2407

    2024

  3. [11]

    Ronald Fagin, Joseph Y Halpern, Yoram Moses, and Moshe Vardi. 2004. Reasoning about knowledge. MIT press

    2004

  4. [12]

    Xiyan Fu and Anette Frank. 2023. Seti: Systematicity evaluation of textual inference. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 4101--4114

    2023

  5. [13]

    Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, et al. 2025. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Suchin Gururangan, Swabha Swayamdipta, Omer Levy, Roy Schwartz, Samuel R Bowman, and Noah A Smith. 2018. Annotation artifacts in natural language inference data. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.02324

    2018 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Daichi Haraguchi, Kiyoaki Shirai, Naoya Inoue, and Natthawut Kertkeidkachorn. 2023. Discovering highly influential shortcut reasoning: An automated template-free approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.09718

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Jordan Hoffmann, Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Elena Buchatskaya, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, Diego de Las Casas, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Johannes Welbl, Aidan Clark, et al. 2022. Training compute-optimal large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.15556

    2022 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Guan Zhe Hong, Bhavya Vasudeva, Vatsal Sharan, Cyrus Rashtchian, Prabhakar Raghavan, and Rina Panigrahy. 2025. Latent concept disentanglement in transformer-based language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.16975

    2025

  10. [18]

    Kyle Hsu, William Dorrell, James Whittington, Jiajun Wu, and Chelsea Finn. 2023. Disentanglement via latent quantization. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:45463--45488

    2023

  11. [19]

    MG Myriam Hunink, Milton C Weinstein, Eve Wittenberg, Michael F Drummond, Joseph S Pliskin, John B Wong, and Paul P Glasziou. 2014. Decision making in health and medicine: integrating evidence and values. Cambridge university press

    2014

  12. [20]

    Aaron Hurst, Adam Lerer, Adam P Goucher, Adam Perelman, Aditya Ramesh, Aidan Clark, AJ Ostrow, Akila Welihinda, Alan Hayes, Alec Radford, et al. 2024. Gpt-4o system card. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21276

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Pier Paolo Ippolito. 2020. Causal reasoning in machine learning. Ph.D. thesis, University of Southampton

    2020

  14. [22]

    Ma \"e l Jullien, Marco Valentino, and Andr \'e Freitas. 2024. Semeval-2024 task 2: Safe biomedical natural language inference for clinical trials. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.04963

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Ma \"e l Jullien, Marco Valentino, Hannah Frost, Paul O'Regan, Donal Landers, and Andr \'e Freitas. 2023. Semeval-2023 task 7: Multi-evidence natural language inference for clinical trial data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.02993

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Jared Kaplan, Sam McCandlish, Tom Henighan, Tom B Brown, Benjamin Chess, Rewon Child, Scott Gray, Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Scaling laws for neural language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.08361

    2020 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Vladimir Karpukhin, Barlas Oguz, Sewon Min, Patrick Lewis, Ledell Wu, Sergey Edunov, Danqi Chen, and Wen-tau Yih. 2020. Dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)...

    2020

  18. [26]

    Akarsh Kumar, Jeff Clune, Joel Lehman, and Kenneth O Stanley. 2025. Questioning representational optimism in deep learning: The fractured entangled representation hypothesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.11581

    2025 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Jialin Liu, Changyu Wang, and Siru Liu. 2023. Utility of chatgpt in clinical practice. Journal of medical Internet research, 25:e48568

    2023

  20. [28]

    Xiaoyu Liu, Paiheng Xu, Junda Wu, Jiaxin Yuan, Yifan Yang, Yuhang Zhou, Fuxiao Liu, Tianrui Guan, Haoliang Wang, Tong Yu, et al. 2025. Large language models and causal inference in collaboration: A comprehensive survey. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics...

    2025

  21. [29]

    Gary Marcus. 2022. Deep learning is hitting a wall. Nautilus, 10:2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    Uzma Nawaz, Mufti Anees-ur Rahaman, and Zubair Saeed. 2025. A review of neuro-symbolic ai integrating reasoning and learning for advanced cognitive systems. Intelligent Systems with Applications, page 200541

    2025

  23. [31]

    o rg Schl \

    Van Bach Nguyen, Paul Youssef, Christin Seifert, and J \"o rg Schl \"o tterer. 2024. Llms for generating and evaluating counterfactuals: A comprehensive study. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.00722

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    OpenAI . 2025. Introducing OpenAI o3 and o4‑mini . Blog post, OpenAI. System card reference: https://openai.com/index/o3-o4-mini-system-card/

    2025

  25. [33]

    Arun Pandey, Micha \"e l Fanuel, Joachim Schreurs, and Johan AK Suykens. 2022. Disentangled representation learning and generation with manifold optimization. Neural Computation, 34(10):2009--2036

    2022

  26. [34]

    Judea Pearl. 2009. Causality. Cambridge university press

    2009

  27. [35]

    Judea Pearl. 2014. Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: networks of plausible inference. Elsevier

    2014

  28. [36]

    Yijian Qin, Xin Wang, Ziwei Zhang, and Wenwu Zhu. 2023. Disentangled representation learning with large language models for text-attributed graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.18152

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Xin Quan, Marco Valentino, Louise Dennis, and Andr \'e Freitas. 2024. Enhancing ethical explanations of large language models through iterative symbolic refinement. In Proceedings of the 18th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (...

    2024

  30. [38]

    Arya Rao, Michael Pang, John Kim, Meghana Kamineni, Winston Lie, Anoop K Prasad, Adam Landman, Keith Dreyer, and Marc D Succi. 2023. Assessing the utility of chatgpt throughout the entire clinical workflow: development and usability study. Journal of Medical Internet Research,...

    2023

  31. [39]

    Koustuv Sinha, Shagun Sodhani, Jin Dong, Joelle Pineau, and William L Hamilton. 2019. Clutrr: A diagnostic benchmark for inductive reasoning from text. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.06177

    2019 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Peter Smith. 2003. An introduction to formal logic. Cambridge University Press

    2003

  33. [41]

    Dung Ngoc Thai, Victor Ardulov, Jose Ulises Mena, Simran Tiwari, Gleb Erofeev, Ramy Eskander, Karim Tarabishy, Ravi B Parikh, and Wael Salloum. 2024. Acr: A benchmark for automatic cohort retrieval. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.14780

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timoth \'e e Lacroix, Baptiste Rozi \`e re, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Son Tran, Edjard Mota, and Artur d'Avila Garcez. 2025. Reasoning in neurosymbolic ai. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.20313

    2025 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Miles Turpin, Julian Michael, Ethan Perez, and Samuel Bowman. 2023. Language models don't always say what they think: Unfaithful explanations in chain-of-thought prompting. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:74952--74965

    2023

  37. [45]

    Marco Valentino, Geonhee Kim, Dhairya Dalal, Zhixue Zhao, and Andr \'e Freitas. 2025. Mitigating content effects on reasoning in language models through fine-grained activation steering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.12189

    2025

  38. [46]

    Marco Valentino, Jordan Meadows, Lan Zhang, and Andr \'e Freitas. 2023. Multi-operational mathematical derivations in latent space. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.01230

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Johan Van Benthem. 2011. Logical dynamics of information and interaction. Cambridge University Press

    2011

  40. [48]

    Ruslan Idelfonso Magana Vsevolodovna and Marco Monti. 2025. Enhancing large language models through neuro-symbolic integration and ontological reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.07640

    2025

  41. [49]

    Xin Wang, Hong Chen, Si'ao Tang, Zihao Wu, and Wenwu Zhu. 2024. Disentangled representation learning. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 46(12):9677--9696

    2024

  42. [50]

    Greta Warren, Ruth MJ Byrne, and Mark T Keane. 2024. Categorical and continuous features in counterfactual explanations of ai systems. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems, 14(4):1--37

    2024

  43. [51]

    Albert Webson and Ellie Pavlick. 2022. Do prompt-based models really understand the meaning of their prompts? In Proceedings of the 2022 conference of the north american chapter of the association for computational linguistics: Human language technologies, pages 2300--2344

    2022

  44. [52]

    Frank Wood, Jan Willem Meent, and Vikash Mansinghka. 2014. A new approach to probabilistic programming inference. In Artificial intelligence and statistics, pages 1024--1032. PMLR

    2014

  45. [53]

    Lan Zhang, Marco Valentino, and Andre Freitas. 2025 a . Formalizing complex mathematical statements with llms: A study on mathematical definitions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.12065

    2025 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Yingji Zhang, Marco Valentino, Danilo S Carvalho, and Andr \'e Freitas. 2025 b . Learning to disentangle latent reasoning rules with language vaes: A systematic study. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.19418

    2025

  47. [55]

    URL: " 'urlintro :=

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year eprint doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before...

  48. [56]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.