Thinking effort aligns between humans and reasoning models in abductive reasoning

A major question in cognitive modeling concerns the behavioral alignment between large language models and humans across linguistic and non-linguistic tasks. Unlike standard LLMs, large reasoning models (LRMs) are optimized with reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards, encouraging correct solutions to reasoning tasks rather than preference-aligned responses. Recent work (de Varda et al., 2025) investigates the cost of thinking in humans and LRMs by comparing human reaction times with model reasoning traces across a range of reasoning tasks. We isolate this alignment by turning to abductive reasoning: unlike deductive tasks, its difficulty cannot be inferred from formal structure and offers no shortcuts a model could exploit to mimic effort without genuine search, providing firmer ground for empirical claims of shared effort. We find further evidence of alignment between LRM and human reasoning effort, as well as evidence that models and humans tend to make similar errors. Finally, we show that decoding methods that let models explore multiple reasoning paths increase alignment in reasoning cost between humans and LRMs across the three models tested.

When the Canonical Completion Is Wrong: Formalizing and Measuring the Jump in Large Language Models

Whether large language models (LLMs) can perform the abductive leap from evidence to a new system of axioms, commonly referred to as a jump, has recently attracted considerable debate. A prominent position holds that LLMs are structurally incapable of such jumps, while recent studies challenge both its mechanism and its evidence. However, the debate remains difficult to settle, since the field still lacks a formal definition of the jump and a measure to test either side. In this paper, we develop a formal account of the jump in four steps and measure the second. The steps ask what the default completion of partial data is, when abandoning it is forced, when the abandonment is correct, and how successive jumps compound. Specifically, we define a jump instance as a finite extension problem with a machine-checked certificate that a correct completion exists, is unique up to renaming, and differs from the canonical completion of the data. The canonical completion is given by the left and right Kan extensions and is also what models produce without constraints, so it serves as the default. We prove that jump instances are well-posed and establish a family theorem that certifies instances of unbounded difficulty without enumeration. We further formalize when a jump is correct and how successive jumps compound. Finally, we run the measurement on nine certified instances and four frontier models. The Kan-default rate is zero in all 248 constrained trials, so the models do jump at this step and abandon the excluded default every time. Failures at higher difficulty stem from exhausted reasoning budgets or constraint errors, never from reverting to the default. These results indicate that the second step is not the bottleneck. If the disputed incapacity is real, it lies in generating the constraints or inventing the framework. Code can be found at: https://github.com/EEthanShi/kan-jump-test.

CEDAR-GRPO: Process-Aware Reinforcement Learning for General Abductive Reasoning in LLMs

Abductive reasoning, often characterized as inference to the best explanation, is central to explanation under uncertainty, from everyday sense-making and investigation to scientific discovery. Yet LLM research has mostly studied abduction through narrow, task-specific benchmarks, making it unclear whether observed gains transfer beyond the benchmark family used for training or evaluation. We ask whether RL post-training can improve abduction as a transferable reasoning capability. We introduce CEDAR-GRPO, a process-aware framework that combines final-answer correctness with abductive rewards for evidence coverage and evidence-to-explanation directionality. Four open-weight LLMs are post-trained on a controlled, domain-neutral mixture of abductive hypothesis-generation and hypothesis-selection tasks. We evaluate them on 11 unseen tasks spanning hypothesis selection, missing-fact generation, defeasible inference, long-context investigation, clinical reasoning, code debugging, and non-abductive controls. CEDAR- GRPO improves every model on every held-out task over both base models and correctness-only GRPO, with average gains of 7.4 and 2.7 points, respectively, and a maximum gain of 30.8 points. Ablations confirm that RL, abductive reward design, and task diversity each contribute to transfer. Process-level metrics further show stronger abductive behavior, including exploration of alternatives, elimination of rivals, backtracking, and uncertainty marking.

LLMs Don't Pay for the Jump

Zahavy [2026] argues that Large Language Models, despite their capabilities in induction and deduction, cannot perform the abductive "Jump" that produced Einstein's equivalence principle, and attributes this limitation to the absence of embodied simulation. Zheng-Xin [2026] and Farmer [2026] question whether embodiment is necessary for abduction, pointing to alternative routes to General Relativity and forms of abduction that require no sensorimotor grounding. Max Planck resolved the blackbody radiation problem in 1900. Planck's move to E = hν required no embodied simulation. It was motivated by a mathematical consequence of classical theory, an infinite predicted energy for a finite measured quantity, that could not be physically accepted. We show that neither induction nor deduction could have produced the postulate and argue that its adoption required a coupling between epistemic error and physical cost. We formalize this distinction through thermodynamic coupling and show that fixed-weight transformer inference lacks such coupling, regardless of model scale. This is consistent with empirical results showing that output entropy remains nearly unchanged across tasks with sharply increasing causal difficulty, even as accuracy falls from 100% to 17%. We therefore argue that the missing ingredient in machine abduction may lie deeper than embodiment: a system must have some physical mechanism through which epistemic error becomes costly enough to force revision.

A Minimal $κ$--$τ$ Logic for Risk-Sensitive Abduction

Standard approaches to abductive reasoning can retain multiple candidate explanations, but they do not generally combine explicit compositional cross-hypothesis interaction with an internal, rival-sensitive commitment judgment. This paper argues that in risk-sensitive domains -- where premature commitment carries asymmetric downside costs -- the timing of commitment is itself a governed decision that the inferential apparatus should formally represent. We present a minimal $κ$--$τ$ logical framework built on two primitives: epistemic interaction among hypotheses ($κ$) and a normative commitment threshold ($τ$). Hypotheses may coexist, reinforce or inhibit one another, and form emergent composite explanations, while collapse into committed conclusions is regulated by governance constraints rather than forced by inference alone. The logic is developed in two complementary modes sharing the interaction relation and the governance apparatus: a synthetic mode, in which atomic hypotheses are composed upward into emergent explanations, and an analytic mode, in which complex observed states of affairs are decomposed into causal clusters of latent factors, with commitment governed at both the cluster and the factor level. The framework provides formal machinery for domains in which the distinction between highly likely and commit-worthy is operationally consequential. The $κ$--$τ$ logic is positioned as the symbolic governance layer of a neurosymbolic architecture: its epistemic parameters are naturally estimated by neural components -- semantic embeddings and generative models, as demonstrated in existing computational realizations -- while its normative parameters remain under explicit human governance, yielding transparent and auditable abductive reasoning for deployment in high-stakes settings.

MoCA: Implicit Social Context Analysis

Human social communication, such as affection and intent, is often conveyed in highly implicit ways, where underlying meanings are expressed through indirect, socially and culturally grounded signals rather than explicit statements. Such implicit social contexts are pervasive in real-world interactions, yet there remains a lack of a formal and systematic framework for studying them. In this paper, we introduce Implicit Social Context Analysis (MoCA), a novel task that systematically models implicit social scenarios along three key dimensions: affection, intent, and stance. We construct a high-quality benchmark containing 3,108 multimodal instances collected from real-world sources, with fine-grained cognitive annotations revealing who expresses what toward whom, as well as how and why it is conveyed. Using the MoCA dataset, we show that state-of-the-art multimodal large language models struggle significantly with this task because of their reliance on explicit cues and limited ability to reason over latent social contexts. To address this challenge, we propose Conflict-Driven Abductive Reasoning (CoDAR), a novel framework that models the discrepancy between observed expressions and expected truthful behavior as cognitive conflict, thereby enabling the inference of hidden mental states. Extensive experiments demonstrate that CoDAR substantially improves model performance. Nevertheless, a large gap from human reasoning remains, highlighting the fundamental difficulty of implicit social understanding.

Don't Let Me Ask for It: LLMs Show Deficiencies in Active Multi-Turn Information Acquisition for Abductive Inference

Abductive reasoning requires forming hypotheses that explain observed evidence and revising them as new evidence becomes available. While large language models (LLMs) are often evaluated on whether they solve abductive reasoning tasks correctly, less is known about how they acquire evidence, update their hypotheses, and decide when to stop. We introduce Alien Abduction game, an interactive probe for studying these behaviours under different interaction modes. The modes vary in whether evidence is provided upfront or across turns, and whether queries are selected by the model or examples are provided by the oracle. Across models, providing evidence upfront leads to higher success rates than distributing it across turns. In multi-turn settings, some models commit before using the available evidence, while others exhaust the turn budget without converging. Models also achieve higher success rates when examples are provided by the oracle than when they select their own queries, although their final hypotheses are more consistent with the evidence they selected. These findings suggest that models may form hypotheses that fit self-selected evidence without sufficiently distinguishing them from alternatives, and may struggle to validate and refine their hypotheses or determine when to stop.

Analytic Abduction: Causal Decomposition and Governed Commitment for Human--AI Coordination

Abductive reasoning operates in two directions. The synthetic mode builds explanations from available hypotheses; the analytic mode, conversely, identifies the latent factors whose interaction accounts for a complex observed state. This paper develops the analytic mode as a non-greedy, risk-sensitive discipline of commitment, in which candidate factors coexist and interact, resolving into committed conclusions only when explicit governance conditions are met. The formal core is the $κ$-$τ$ apparatus: $κ$ encodes the epistemic interaction among hypotheses, and $τ$ sets a commitment threshold calibrated to the decision's stakes. The central contribution is the causal cluster, a structured object recording which latent factors participate in a decomposition, with what weights and interaction structure, together with a two-level architecture (intra-cluster $κ^*$, inter-cluster $κ^{**}$) that guards against causal misattribution. Demonstrated in epidemiological crisis decomposition and adversarial cyber threat analysis, the framework's contribution to human-AI reasoning is the legibility of suspended decomposition as a shared coordination object, providing structural resistance to premature convergence. In practice, the decision-maker is handed not a single imposed answer but the competing explanatory scenarios, weighted by plausibility and paired with the evidence that would resolve between them, so that sound action is possible even before the ambiguity is resolved.

LLMs Can See the Smoke but not the Fire: Evaluating Abductive Reasoning with Elenchos

Large language models (LLMs) excel at pattern recognition and text generation, but their capacity for abductive inference - inferring latent hypotheses that explain observed behavior - remains poorly understood. Here, we introduce Elenchos (named after the Socratic method of cross-examination), a generative evaluation framework that measures abductive reasoning as a structural inverse problem. Given a reference formal system, such as the lambda-calculus, and a potentially mutated counterpart, agents must determine whether a mutation has occurred and infer the rule modifications responsible for the resulting behavioral differences. Evaluating frontier and mid-tier LLMs reveals a consistent detection-attribution dissociation: models often recognize that a system has been altered but struggle to identify the latent mutations causing the observed discrepancies. Performance degrades substantially under interacting mutations, where models frequently recover only a subset of the underlying mutations. Preliminary evidence also suggests diminishing returns from increased inference-time reasoning, with only modest improvements under larger reasoning budgets, though this finding requires further validation.

AGM-like Paraconsistent Partial Meet Abductive Expansion Operation

In his 1996 doctoral thesis, Maurice Pagnucco created the first AGM-like abductive expansion operation. Taking his operation as a basis, as well as a taxonomy -- inspired by Atocha Aliseda -- responsible for highlighting and formalizing the main components of abductive reasoning, the main aim of this paper is to present a new paraconsistent AGM-like abductive expansion operation -- capable of assimilating contradictory explanatory hypotheses without trivialization and the consequent absurd epistemic state -- with its postulates and its transitively relational partial meet construction. To a large extent, the formal development presented in this paper was only made possible by the recent creation of the paraconsistent logic RCbr, an LFI (Logics of Formal Inconsistencies) that establishes properties especially relevant to belief revision contexts, in particular, the ability to be self-extensional -- i.e., to satisfy the replacement property. This is the first of two papers: the paraconsistent abductive expansion operation announced here -- which is part of a new system called AGMpabd -- despite bringing many interesting features, does not assign any relevant epistemic role to the paraconsistent operators of negation and consistency. Only in a second paper will an analogous paraconsistent abductive expansion operation -- which is part of another new system, AGMcircabd -- be enhanced in this direction. Nevertheless, to the best of my knowledge, the operation developed in this paper is the first of its kind in the AGM literature.

Neurosymbolic Clinical Trial Matching via LLM-Driven Abduction and Logical Verification

Large Language Models (LLMs) offer a promising path to automate Clinical Trial Matching (CTM), but still struggle with the deterministic verification required for complex eligibility criteria. Conversely, purely symbolic methods provide formal rigour but break down when faced with incomplete patient records and noisy clinical evidence. To bridge this gap, we investigate a hybrid framework for CTM combining LLMs with logical verification. In particular, we introduce an abductive neurosymbolic CTM framework (αNeSy-CTM), which leverages the linguistic and world knowledge in LLMs to support reasoning over noisy and underspecified clinical text. Extensive evaluation demonstrates that αNeSy-CTM substantially outperforms standalone LLM baselines, achieving up to 30% relative improvement over zero-shot baselines. In addition, our analyses confirm the impact of abductive reasoning on CTM, with αNeSy-CTM exhibiting improved accuracy, specificity, and robustness over a non-abductive neurosymbolic setting. Furthermore, αNeSy-CTM and Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning prove highly complementary, highlighting the potential for a hybrid routing policy. Ultimately, this paper demonstrates the impact of neurosymbolic methods for automating CTM, providing a path toward the next generation of auditable, LLM-driven clinical applications.

What Your Posts Reveal: A Benchmark and Agentic Framework for User-Level Privacy Leakage on Social Media

Public social media posts can reveal private information through weak cues scattered across text, images, or metadata. Such leakage is often cumulative and cross-post: cues that appear harmless in isolation may jointly expose a user's home, workplace, or routine. However, current research lacks a unified benchmark for user-level multimodal privacy leakage and an evaluation metric that captures exposure severity beyond binary accuracy. To address these gaps, we propose SopriBench, a synthetic benchmark guided by leakage patterns abstracted from a private reference corpus of Rednote and Instagram accounts, covering 50 user profiles and 1,569 images with attributes, contextual sensitivity, granularity, leakage type, inference difficulty, and supporting evidence. We further introduce the Privacy Exposure Score (PES), which weights value granularity by contextual sensitivity. Inspired by abductive reasoning, we introduce Argus, a training-free agentic framework for cumulative leakage inference. Argus forms hypotheses from accumulated evidence, verifies supporting evidence, and aggregates cross-post cues into privacy profiles, achieving 0.55 PES, a 25% improvement over the strongest baseline, with the largest gain on cross-post leakage.

Abduction Prover in Isabelle/HOL

Proof assistants based on expressive logics suffer limited automation for proof search, raising the cost of formal verification based on proof assistants. We address this problem by introducing the Abduction Prover for Isabelle/HOL. Given a challenging proof goal, the Abduction Prover constructs a proof script for the goal by identifying useful conjectures using abductive reasoning.