Physics problems constitute a significant aspect of reasoning, necessitating complicated reasoning ability and abundant physics knowledge. However, existing large language models (LLMs) frequently fail due to a lack of knowledge or incorrect knowledge application. To mitigate these issues, we propose Physics Reasoner, a knowledge-augmented framework to solve physics problems with LLMs. Specifically, the proposed framework constructs a comprehensive formula set to provide explicit physics knowledge and utilizes checklists containing detailed instructions to guide effective knowledge application. Namely, given a physics problem, Physics Reasoner solves it through three stages: problem analysis, formula retrieval, and guided reasoning. During the process, checklists are employed to enhance LLMs’ self-improvement in the analysis and reasoning stages. Empirically, Physics Reasoner mitigates the issues of insufficient knowledge and incorrect application, achieving state-of-the-art performance on SciBench with an average accuracy improvement of 5.8%.

Web tasks, which involve processing data from online resources, challenge agents to generalize beyond fixed knowledge to unseen task contexts. Learning from experience, the ability to derive reusable patterns from past tasks, is crucial for improving generalization. However, existing methods focus on summarizing workflows, i.e., common sub-routines, which may introduce excessive low-level details that distract models. Additionally, the absence of task-specific objectives can lead to inconsistencies between workflows and future task queries, hindering reasoning performance. This paper seeks to mitigate these issues by proposing A², a framework that derives task-adaptive hierarchical abstraction to enhance web task reasoning. Our approach first extracts general-purpose semantic abstraction from past task-solution pairs. Combined with the next task query, this abstraction forms a task-adaptive episodic abstraction that guides subsequent reasoning. Experiments show that A² achieves superior performance with competitive cost-efficiency, improving success rates by 0.7% on Mind2web and 4.6% on Webarena.

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit powerful reasoning capacity, as evidenced by prior studies focusing on objective topics that with unique standard answers such as arithmetic and commonsense reasoning. However, the reasoning to definite answers emphasizes more on logical thinking, and falls short in effectively reflecting the comprehensive, reflective, and creative thinking that is also critical for the overall reasoning prowess of LLMs. In light of this, we build a dataset SJTP comprising diverse SubJective ToPics with free responses, as well as three evaluation indicators to fully explore LLM’s reasoning ability. We observe that a sole emphasis on logical thinking falls short in effectively tackling subjective challenges. Therefore, we introduce a framework grounded in the principle of the Negation of Negation (NeoN) to unleash the potential comprehensive, reflective, and creative thinking abilities of LLMs. Comprehensive experiments on SJTP demonstrate the efficacy of NeoN, and the enhanced performance on various objective reasoning tasks unequivocally underscores the benefits of stimulating LLM’s subjective thinking in augmenting overall reasoning capabilities.

Logical reasoning has been an ongoing pursuit in the field of AI. Despite significant advancements made by large language models (LLMs), they still struggle with complex logical reasoning problems. To enhance reasoning performance, one promising direction is scalable oversight, which requires LLMs to identify their own errors and then improve by themselves. Various self-verification methods have been proposed in pursuit of this goal. Nevertheless, whether existing models understand their own errors well is still under investigation. In this paper, we take a closer look at the self-verification abilities of LLMs in the context of logical reasoning, focusing on their ability to identify logical fallacies accurately. We introduce a dataset, FALLACIES, containing 232 types of reasoning fallacies categorized in a hierarchical taxonomy. By conducting exhaustive experiments on FALLACIES, we obtain comprehensive and detailed analyses of a series of models on their verification abilities. Our main findings suggest that existing LLMs could struggle to identify fallacious reasoning steps accurately and may fall short of guaranteeing the validity of self-verification methods. Drawing from these observations, we offer suggestions for future research and practical applications of self-verification methods.