Modern language models (LMs) exhibit strong deductive reasoning capabilities, yet standard evaluations emphasize correctness while overlooking a key aspect of reasoning: efficiency. In real-world reasoning scenarios, much of the available information is irrelevant, and effective deductive inference requires identifying and ignoring such distractions. We propose a framework for assessing LM reasoning efficiency through the lens of logic programming, introducing a simple method to align proofs written in natural language--as generated by an LM--with shortest proofs found by executing the logic program. Efficiency is quantified by measuring how well a model avoids unnecessary inference. Empirically, we construct a dataset of math word problems injected with various number of irrelevant axioms that vary in semantic overlap with the goal theorem. We find that current LMs show marked accuracy declines under such conditions--even with minimal, domainconsistent distractions--and the proofs they generate frequently exhibit detours through irrelevant inferences.2

A central question in sensory neuroscience is how much, but also what information neurons transmit about the world. While Shannon's information theory provides a principled framework to quantify the amount of information neurons encode about all stimuli, it does not reveal which stimuli contribute most, or what stimulus features are encoded. As a concrete example, it is known that neurons in the early visual cortex are'sensitive' to stimuli in a small region of space (their receptive field). However, it is not clear how such simple intuitions carry to more complex scenarios, e.g. with large, noisy & non-linear population of neurons and high-dimensional stimuli. Several previous measures of neural sensitivity have been proposed.

No feature ranking can be simultaneously faithful, stable, and complete when features are collinear. For collinear pairs, ranking reduces to a coin flip. We prove this impossibility, quantify it for four model classes, resolve it via ensemble averaging (DASH), and machine-verify it with 305 Lean 4 theorems. We characterize the complete attribution design space: exactly two families of methods exist -- faithful-complete methods (unstable, with rankings that flip up to 50% of the time) and ensemble methods like DASH (stable, reporting ties for symmetric features) -- and no method lies outside this dichotomy. The impossibility is quantitative: the attribution ratio diverges as 1/(1-rho^2) for gradient boosting, is infinite for Lasso, and converges for random forests. DASH (Diversified Aggregation of SHAP) is provably Pareto-optimal among unbiased aggregations, achieving the Cramer-Rao variance bound with a tight ensemble size formula. In a survey of 77 public datasets, 68% exhibit attribution instability. Switching to conditional SHAP does not escape the impossibility when features have equal causal effects. The framework includes practical diagnostics -- a Z-test workflow and single-model screening tool -- and has direct consequences for fairness auditing: SHAP-based proxy discrimination audits are provably unreliable under collinearity. The design space theorem, diagnostics, and impossibility are mechanically verified in Lean 4 (305 theorems from 16 axioms, 0 sorry) -- to our knowledge, the first formally verified impossibility in explainable AI.

Given the intractably large size of the space of proofs, any model that is capable of general deductive reasoning must generalize to proofs of greater complexity. Recent studies have shown that large language models (LLMs) possess some abstract deductive reasoning ability given chain-of-thought prompts. However, they have primarily been tested on proofs using modus ponens or of a specific size, and from the same distribution as the in-context examples. To measure the general deductive reasoning ability of LLMs, we test on a broad set of deduction rules and measure their ability to generalize to more complex proofs from simpler demonstrations from multiple angles: depth-, width-, and compositional generalization. To facilitate systematic exploration, we construct a new synthetic and programmable reasoning dataset that enables control over deduction rules and proof complexity. Our experiments on four LLMs of various sizes and training objectives show that they are able to generalize to compositional proofs. However, they have difficulty generalizing to longer proofs, and they require explicit demonstrations to produce hypothetical subproofs, specifically in proof by cases and proof by contradiction.

We study the effectiveness of neural sequence models for premise selection in automated theorem proving, one of the main bottlenecks in the formalization of mathematics. We propose a two stage approach for this task that yields good results for the premise selection task on the Mizar corpus while avoiding the handengineered features of existing state-of-the-art models. To our knowledge, this is the first time deep learning has been applied to theorem proving on a large scale.

Liquid democracy with ranked delegations is a novel voting scheme that unites the practicability of representative democracy with the idealistic appeal of direct democracy: Every voter decides between casting their vote on a question at hand or delegating their voting weight to some other, trusted agent. Delegations are transitive, and since voters may end up in a delegation cycle, they are encouraged to indicate not only a single delegate, but a set of potential delegates and a ranking among them. Based on the delegation preferences of all voters, a delegation rule selects one representative per voter. Previous work has revealed a trade-off between two properties of delegation rules called anonymity and copy-robustness. To overcome this issue we study two fractional delegation rules: MIXEDBORDA BRANCHING, which generalizes a rule satisfying copy-robustness, and the RANDOMWALKRULE, which satisfies anonymity. Using the Markov chain tree theorem, we show that the two rules are in fact equivalent, and simultaneously satisfy generalized versions of the two properties. Combining the same theorem with Fulkerson's algorithm, we develop a polynomial-time algorithm for computing the outcome of the studied delegation rule. This algorithm is of independent interest, having applications in semi-supervised learning and graph theory.

This is not generally allowable. F can do this because random-search logs contain interchangeable trials.

As datasets capturing human choices grow in richness and scale--particularly in online domains--there is an increasing need for choice models that escape traditional choice-theoretic axioms such as regularity, stochastic transitivity, and Luce's choice axiom. In this work we introduce the Pairwise Choice Markov Chain (PCMC) model of discrete choice, an inferentially tractable model that does not assume any of the above axioms while still satisfying the foundational axiom of uniform expansion, a considerably weaker assumption than Luce's choice axiom. We show that the PCMC model significantly outperforms both the Multinomial Logit (MNL) model and a mixed MNL (MMNL) model in prediction tasks on both synthetic and empirical datasets known to exhibit violations of Luce's axiom. Our analysis also synthesizes several recent observations connecting the Multinomial Logit model and Markov chains; the PCMC model retains the Multinomial Logit model as a special case.