Skip to content
Conference Open access

NSF-CoT: Neuro-Symbolic Formal Verification of Chain-of-Thought Faithfulness in Contextual Question Answering

2026 · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · pp. 10645-10663 · 1 citation · 24 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

NSF-CoT is presented, a neuro-symbolic formal verification method that checks CoT faithfulness step by step for contextual question answering and consistently outperforms causal mediation, perturbation probes, and behavioral monitoring.

Abstract

Chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting makes language models write step-by-step explanations, but these steps may not match what the model actually used to choose its answer. Existing faithfulness checks often only test whether changing the written chain changes the answer, without verifying whether the steps are truly supported by the given evidence, or they require special prompts that do not generalize well. We present NSF-CoT , a neuro-symbolic formal verification method that checks CoT faithfulness step by step for contextual question answering. NSF-CoT (1) converts the provided context facts and each reasoning step into simple logical statements, (2) uses coun-terfactual attribution to estimate which context facts the model relied on while generating each step, and (3) verifies each step using a hybrid checker that combines an SMT solver with an LLM-based entailment judge. For every step, we score groundedness (supported by the full context), validity (supported by the facts the model relied on), and utility (helps reach the final answer), and combine them into a faithfulness score. Across OpenBookQA, QASC, and HotpotQA, NSF-CoT consistently outperforms causal mediation, perturbation probes, and behavioral monitoring, and it identifies reasoning steps that are not only unfaithful but also harmful to the model’s final decision. Our code is available here. 1

Read PDF

Similar papers

Preprint Aug 2026

The Tell-Tale Trace: Detecting Reasoning Failures in LLMs Using Chain-of-Thought Dynamics

Results show that capability failures can manifest as distributed, task-dependent changes in the structure of visible reasoning, and that CoT dynamics agnostic to whether the verbalized trace reflects the model's internal computations can help diagnose and correct failures.

Shashwat Sourav, Aishwarya H. Balwani · 1 citation
Jul 2026

Reason Popper-ly: Patching In-Context Reasoning with Inductive Logic Programming

Reason Popper-ly, a neurosymbolic framework that uses inductive logic programming (ILP) to learn relation composition rules from reasoning traces and deploys them as an online verifier for step-level correction, consistently improves terminal accuracy over standard CoT.

Zi-Rong Chen, Mei-Yi Ma · 0 citations
Book Open access Aug 2026

SymDiag: Explainable Diagnosis for LLM Reasoning via Neuro-Symbolic Verification

SymDiag is proposed, a neuro-symbolic framework that reframes reasoning verification as structured failure diagnosis and incorporates a Self-Auditor that disentangles TranslationError from ReasoningError via dual symbolic encodings consistency checks, enabling robust diagnosis under partial observability.

Wenyao Cui, Hua-Ping Zhang, Yongyi Huang et al. · 0 citations
Jul 2026

SymStep: Symbolic Step Verification for Logical Reasoning

SymStep: an LLM makes one atomic claim at a time (DEDUCE: Alice, pet, Cat), then a lightweight constraint propagator checks the claim for consistency with prior accepted deductions, rejects contradictions, and cascades implied facts automatically.

Aida Usmanova, Rui Gao, Dilshod Azizov et al. · 0 citations
Jul 2026

CASE: Causal Alignment and Structural Enforcement for Improving Chain-of-Thought Faithfulness

Experiments show that CASE achieves a 37\% average per-setting relative improvement in overall CoT faithfulness over the strongest baselines, exhibits stronger cross-dataset faithfulness transfer, and maintains competitive average accuracy.

Ziming Wang, Yinghua Yao, Changwu Huang et al. · 0 citations
Jul 2026

Interventional Grounding Audits: Black-Box Premise-Dependency Tests for LLM Chain-of-Thought via Predicate Substitution

This work introduces interventional grounding audits, a black-box, step-level test of premise dependency, and identifies that 66% of correctly-solved problems contain at least one aligned step insensitive to a direct proof-tree dependency under consistent substitution.

H. Nakamura · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.