VeriCoT: Neuro-symbolic Chain-of-Thought Validation via Logical Consistency Checks
Yu Feng, Nathaniel Weir, Kaj Bostrom, Sam Bayless, Darion Cassel, Sapana Chaudhary, Benjamin Kiesl-Reiter, Huzefa Rangwala
Abstract
LLMs can perform multi-step reasoning through Chain-of-Thought (CoT), but they cannot reliably verify their own logic. Even when they reach correct answers, the underlying reasoning may be flawed, undermining trust in high-stakes scenarios. To mitigate this issue, we introduce VeriCoT, a neuro-symbolic method that extracts and verifies formal logical arguments from CoT reasoning. VeriCoT formalizes each CoT reasoning step into first-order logic and identifies premises that ground the argument in source context, commonsense knowledge, or prior reasoning steps. The symbolic representation enables automated solvers to verify logical validity while the NL premises allow humans and systems to identify ungrounded or fallacious reasoning steps. Experiments on the ProofWriter, LegalBench-SARA, and BioASQ datasets show VeriCoT effectively identifies flawed reasoning, and serves as a strong predictor of final answer correctness. We also leverage VeriCoT’s verification signal for (1) inference-time self-reflection, (2) supervised fine-tuning (SFT) on VeriCoT-distilled datasets and (3) preference fine-tuning (PFT) with direct preference optimization (DPO) using verification-based pairwise rewards, further improving reasoning validity and accuracy.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext ba4eb99b-905b-4833-98e6-8395ced7b764Cited by top-tier papers4
- Outcome Rewards Do Not Guarantee Verifiable or Causally Important ReasoningQinan Yu, Alexa Tartaglini, Peter Hase, Carlos Guestrin et al.ICML 2026 · 4 citations
- Pushing the Boundaries of Natural Reasoning: Interleaved Bonus from Formal-Logic VerificationChuxue Cao, Jinluan Yang, Haoran Li, Kunhao Pan et al.ICML 2026 · 3 citations
- Open-World LLM Logical ReasoningYe Mo, Chuan Zhou, Fengxiang Cheng, Jialin Yu et al.ICML 2026
- TrustTable: A Neuro-Symbolic Auditing Framework for Faithful Table QAGuangzhen Zhao, Dechang Kong, Tongyu Wu, Zhenjiang DongACL 2026
Builds on16
- Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language ModelsJason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 22,562 citations
- Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward ModelRafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Christopher D. Manning et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 10,924 citations
- Teaching Large Language Models to Self-DebugXinyun Chen, Maxwell Lin, Nathanael Schärli, Denny ZhouICLR 2024 · 1,085 citations
- Climbing towards NLU: On Meaning, Form, and Understanding in the Age of DataEmily M. Bender, Alexander KollerACL 2020 · 914 citations
- Deductive Verification of Chain-of-Thought ReasoningZhan Ling, Yunhao Fang, Xuanlin Li, Zhiao Huang et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 234 citations
Related papers
- Provable Benefits of RLVR over SFT for Reasoning Models: Learning to Backtrack EfficientlyStanley Wei, Juno KimICML 2026
- LCR-RAG: Enhancing Logical Consistency in Retrieval-Augmented Generation via Neuro-symbolic Reinforcement LearningWenxiang Zheng, Guo Tang, Shixin Jiang, Liangyu Huo et al.ACL 2026
- SymDiag: Explainable Diagnosis for LLM Reasoning via Neuro-Symbolic VerificationWenyao Cui, Huaping Zhang, Yongyi Huang, Qiuchi Li et al.KDD 2026
- Latent Veracity Inference for Identifying Errors in Stepwise ReasoningMinsu Kim, Jean-Pierre R. Falet, Oliver Ethan Richardson, Xiaoyin Chen et al.ICLR 2026
- Matrix as Plan: Structured Logical Reasoning with Feedback-Driven ReplanningKe Chen, Jiandian Zeng, Zihao Peng, Guo Li et al.WWW 2026
