Modern language models fail a fundamental requirement of trustworthy intelligence: knowing when not to answer. Despite achieving impressive accuracy on benchmarks, these models produce confident hallucinations, even when wrong answers carry catastrophic consequences. Our evaluations on GSM8K, MedQA and GPQA show frontier models almost never abstain despite explicit warnings of severe penalties, suggesting that prompts cannot override training that rewards any answer over no answer. As a remedy, we propose Reinforced Hesitation (RH): a modification to Reinforcement Learning from Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) to use ternary rewards (+1 correct, 0 abstention, -$λ$ error) instead of binary. Controlled experiments on logic puzzles reveal that varying $λ$ produces distinct models along a Pareto frontier, where each training penalty yields the optimal model for its corresponding risk regime: low penalties produce aggressive answerers, high penalties conservative abstainers. We then introduce two inference strategies that exploit trained abstention as a coordination signal: cascading routes queries through models with decreasing risk tolerance, while self-cascading re-queries the same model on abstention. Both outperform majority voting with lower computational cost. These results establish abstention as a first-class training objective that transforms ``I don't know'' from failure into a coordination signal, enabling models to earn trust through calibrated honesty about their limits.

Multi-agent debate (MAD) has recently emerged as a promising framework for improving the reasoning performance of large language models (LLMs). Yet, whether LLM agents can genuinely engage in deliberative reasoning, beyond simple ensembling or majority voting, remains unclear. We address this question through a controlled study using the Knight--Knave--Spy logic puzzle, which enables precise, step-wise evaluation of debate outcomes and processes under verifiable ground truth. We systematically set up six structural and cognitive factors, including agent team size, composition, confidence visibility, debate order, debate depth, and task difficulty, to disentangle their respective effects on collective reasoning. Our results show that intrinsic reasoning strength and group diversity are the dominant drivers of debate success, while structural parameters such as order or confidence visibility offer limited gains. Beyond outcomes, process-level analyses identify key behavioral patterns: majority pressure suppresses independent correction, effective teams overturn incorrect consensus, and rational, validity-aligned reasoning most strongly predicts improvement. These findings provide valuable insights into how and why LLM debates succeed or fail, offering guidance for designing interpretable and truth-seeking multi-agent reasoning systems.

Human reasoning involves different strategies, each suited to specific problems. Prior work shows that large language model (LLMs) tend to favor a single reasoning strategy, potentially limiting their effectiveness in diverse reasoning challenges. In this work, we investigate whether prompting can control LLMs reasoning strategies and assess its impact on logical problem-solving. While our experiments show that no single strategy consistently improves accuracy, performance could be enhanced if models could adaptively choose the optimal strategy. We propose methods to guide LLMs in strategy selection, highlighting new ways to refine their reasoning abilities.

Recently, Large Language Models (LLMs) have rapidly evolved, approaching Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) while benefiting from large-scale reinforcement learning to enhance Human Alignment (HA) and Reasoning. Recent reward-based optimization algorithms, such as Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO) and Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) have achieved significant performance on reasoning tasks, whereas preference-based optimization algorithms such as Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) significantly improve the performance of LLMs on human alignment. However, despite the strong performance of reward-based optimization methods in alignment tasks , they remain vulnerable to reward hacking. Furthermore, preference-based algorithms (such as Online DPO) haven't yet matched the performance of reward-based optimization algorithms (like PPO) on reasoning tasks, making their exploration in this specific area still a worthwhile pursuit. Motivated by these challenges, we propose the Trust Region Preference Approximation (TRPA) algorithm, which integrates rule-based optimization with preference-based optimization for reasoning tasks. As a preference-based algorithm, TRPA naturally eliminates the reward hacking issue. TRPA constructs preference levels using predefined rules, forms corresponding preference pairs, and leverages a novel optimization algorithm for RL training with a theoretical monotonic improvement guarantee. Experimental results demonstrate that TRPA not only achieves competitive performance on reasoning tasks but also exhibits robust stability. The code of this paper are released and updating on https://github.com/XueruiSu/Trust-Region-Preference-Approximation.git.

Inspired by the success of DeepSeek-R1, we explore the potential of rule-based reinforcement learning (RL) in large reasoning models. To analyze reasoning dynamics, we use synthetic logic puzzles as training data due to their controllable complexity and straightforward answer verification. We make some key technical contributions that lead to effective and stable RL training: a system prompt that emphasizes the thinking and answering process, a stringent format reward function that penalizes outputs for taking shortcuts, and a straightforward training recipe that achieves stable convergence. Our 7B model develops advanced reasoning skills-such as reflection, verification, and summarization-that are absent from the logic corpus. Remarkably, after training on just 5K logic problems, it demonstrates generalization abilities to the challenging math benchmarks AIME and AMC.

Large language models (LLMs) achieve good performance on challenging reasoning benchmarks, yet could also make basic reasoning mistakes. This contrasting behavior is puzzling when it comes to understanding the mechanisms behind LLMs' reasoning capabilities. One hypothesis is that the increasingly high and nearly saturated performance on common reasoning benchmarks could be due to the memorization of similar problems. In this paper, we systematically investigate this hypothesis with a quantitative measurement of memorization in reasoning tasks, using a dynamically generated logical reasoning benchmark based on Knights and Knaves (K&K) puzzles. We found that LLMs could interpolate the training puzzles (achieving near-perfect accuracy) after fine-tuning, yet fail when those puzzles are slightly perturbed, suggesting that the models heavily rely on memorization to solve those training puzzles. On the other hand, we show that while fine-tuning leads to heavy memorization, it also consistently improves generalization performance. In-depth analyses with perturbation tests, cross difficulty-level transferability, probing model internals, and fine-tuning with wrong answers suggest that the LLMs learn to reason on K&K puzzles despite training data memorization. This phenomenon indicates that LLMs exhibit a complex interplay between memorization and genuine reasoning abilities. Finally, our analysis with per-sample memorization score sheds light on how LLMs switch between reasoning and memorization in solving logical puzzles. Our code and data are available at https://memkklogic.github.io.

Knights and knaves problems represent a classic genre of logical puzzles where characters either tell the truth or lie. The objective is to logically deduce each character's identity based on their statements. The challenge arises from the truth-telling or lying behavior, which influences the logical implications of each statement. Solving these puzzles requires not only direct deductions from individual statements, but the ability to assess the truthfulness of statements by reasoning through various hypothetical scenarios. As such, knights and knaves puzzles serve as compelling examples of suppositional reasoning. In this paper, we introduce $\textit{TruthQuest}$, a benchmark for suppositional reasoning based on the principles of knights and knaves puzzles. Our benchmark presents problems of varying complexity, considering both the number of characters and the types of logical statements involved. Evaluations on $\textit{TruthQuest}$ show that large language models like Llama 3 and Mixtral-8x7B exhibit significant difficulties solving these tasks. A detailed error analysis of the models' output reveals that lower-performing models exhibit a diverse range of reasoning errors, frequently failing to grasp the concept of truth and lies. In comparison, more proficient models primarily struggle with accurately inferring the logical implications of potentially false statements.

We provide here a dataset for tasks related to natural language understanding and natural language inference. The dataset contains logical puzzles in natural language from three domains: comparing puzzles, knighs and knaves, and zebra puzzles. Each puzzle is associated with the entire set of atomic questions that can be generated based on the relations and individuals occurring in the text. For each question we provide the correct answer: entailment, contradiction or ambiguity. The answer's correctness is verified against theorem provers. Good puzzles have two properties: (i) each piece of information is necessary and (ii) no unnecessary information is provided. These properties make puzzles interesting candidates for machine comprehension tasks.

We developed a system able to automatically solve logical puzzles in natural language. Our solution is composed by a parser and an inference module. The parser translates the text into first order logic (FOL), while the MACE4 model finder is used to compute the models of the given FOL theory. We also empower our software agent with the capability to provide Yes/No answers to natural language questions related to each puzzle. Moreover, in line with Explainalbe Artificial Intelligence (XAI), the agent can back its answer, providing a graphical representation of the proof. The advantage of using reasoning for Natural Language Understanding (NLU) instead of Machine learning is that the user can obtain an explanation of the reasoning chain. We illustrate how the system performs on various types of natural language puzzles, including 382 knights and knaves puzzles. These features together with the overall performance rate of 80.89\% makes the proposed solution an improvement upon similar solvers for natural language understanding in the puzzles domain.