Theory-of-Mind (ToM) tasks pose a unique challenge for large language models (LLMs), which often lack the capability for dynamic logical reasoning. In this work, we propose DEL-ToM, a framework that improves verifiable ToM reasoning through inference-time scaling rather than architectural changes. Our approach decomposes ToM tasks into a sequence of belief updates grounded in Dynamic Epistemic Logic (DEL), enabling structured and verifiable dynamic logical reasoning. We use data generated automatically via a DEL simulator to train a verifier, which we call the Process Belief Model (PBM), to score each belief update step. During inference, the PBM evaluates candidate belief traces from the LLM and selects the highest-scoring one. This allows LLMs to allocate extra inference-time compute to yield more transparent reasoning. Experiments across model scales and benchmarks show that DEL-ToM consistently improves performance, demonstrating that verifiable belief supervision significantly enhances LLMs’ ToM capabilities without retraining. Code is available at https://github.com/joel-wu/DEL-ToM.

We introduce SATBench, a benchmark for evaluating the logical reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) through logical puzzles derived from Boolean satisfiability (SAT) problems.Unlike prior work that focuses on inference rule-based reasoning, which often involves deducing conclusions from a set of premises, our approach leverages the search-based nature of SAT problems, where the objective is to find a solution that fulfills a specified set of logical constraints. Each instance in SATBench is generated from a SAT formula, then translated into a puzzle using LLMs. The generation process is fully automated and allows for adjustable difficulty by varying the number of clauses. All 2100 puzzles are validated through both LLM-based and solver-based consistency checks, with human validation on a subset. Experimental results show that even the strongest model, o4-mini, achieves only 65.0% accuracy on hard UNSAT problems, close to the random baseline of 50%. Our error analysis reveals systematic failures such as satisfiability bias, context inconsistency, and condition omission, highlighting limitations of current LLMs in search-based logical reasoning. Our code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/Anjiang-Wei/SATBench