"I May Not Have Articulated Myself Clearly": Diagnosing Dynamic Instability in LLM Reasoning at Inference Time

Reasoning failures in large language models (LLMs) are typically measured only at the end of a generation, yet many failures manifest as a process-level breakdown: the model "loses the thread" mid-reasoning. We study whether such breakdowns are detectable from inference-time observables available in standard APIs (token log probabilities), without any training or fine-tuning. We define a simple instability signal that combines consecutive-step distributional shift (JSD) and uncertainty (entropy), summarize each trace by its peak instability strength, and show that this signal reliably predicts failure. Across GSM8K and HotpotQA, instability strength predicts wrong answers with above-chance AUC and yields monotonic bucket-level accuracy decline at scale across model sizes. Crucially, we show that instability is not uniformly harmful: early instability can reflect subsequent stabilization and a correct final answer (\emph{corrective instability}), whereas late instability is more often followed by failure (\emph{destructive instability}), even at comparable peak magnitudes, indicating that recoverability depends not only on how strongly the distribution changes but also on when such changes occur relative to the remaining decoding horizon. The method is model-agnostic, training-free, and reproducible, and is presented as a diagnostic lens rather than a corrective or control mechanism.

Empowering LLMs with Logical Reasoning: A Comprehensive Survey

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable successes on various natural language tasks. However, recent studies have found that there are still significant challenges to the logical reasoning abilities of LLMs. This paper summarizes and categorizes the main challenges into two aspects: (1) Logical question answering, LLMs often fail to generate the correct answer within complex logical problem which requires sophisticated deductive, inductive or abductive reasoning given a collection of premises and constrains. (2) Logical consistency, LLMs are prone to producing responses contradicting themselves across different questions. For example, a state-of-the-art Macaw question-answering LLM answers Yes to both questions Is a magpie a bird? and Does a bird have wings? but answers No to Does a magpie have wings?. To facilitate this research direction, we comprehensively investigate the most cutting-edge methods and propose detailed taxonomies of these methods. Specifically, to accurately answer complex logic questions, previous methods can be categorized based on reliance on external solvers, prompts, pretraining, and fine-tuning. To avoid logical contradictions, we discuss concepts and solutions of various logical consistencies, including implication, negation, transitivity, factuality consistency, and their composites. In addition, we review commonly used benchmark datasets and evaluation metrics, and discuss promising research directions, such as extensions to modal logic to account for uncertainty, and efficient algorithms satisfying multiple logical consistencies simultaneously.