Self-Evolving Neuro-Symbolic Skills for Tool-Augmented Spatial Reasoning

Large vision-language models have achieved strong performance in multimodal reasoning, but they remain unreliable on fine-grained spatial tasks that demand both precise spatial perception and fine-grained geometric computation beyond end-to-end generation. Tool augmentation offers a natural solution, while existing methods either plan tool calls from scratch without explicit dependency constraints or rely on fixed pipelines that are redundant and generalize poorly across spatial tasks. An effective spatial reasoning agent should instead accumulate reusable experience and adaptively compose it for new problems. To this end, we propose NeSy-Spatial, a neuro-symbolic framework for self-evolving spatial skills. NeSy-Spatial abstracts tool interactions and geometric operations into typed executable atomic instructions and composes them into two complementary skill types: Tool-Use Skills for organizing tool execution and Geometry Skills for structured geometric reasoning. During inference, NeSy-Spatial retrieves and executes relevant skills in a closed-loop process. During evolution, it analyzes buffered successful and failed trajectories to refine skill structures and prune unreliable or inactive entries. Experiments on three spatial reasoning benchmarks show that NeSy-Spatial consistently improves reasoning accuracy with more precise tool utilization.

Hallucinations on the Board: Tool-Augmented Evaluation of LLM Chess Commentary

Superhuman game engines in domains like chess have made expert-level evaluations easily accessible, yet they communicate what is true without the natural-language explanations that make such expertise educationally useful to experts and non-experts alike. Large language models could, in principle, bridge this gap, but they frequently hallucinate due to limited domain-specific knowledge, and standard reference-based or LLM-as-a-judge frameworks cannot reliably detect these errors. In this work, we present ACT-Eval, an evaluation framework that decomposes chess commentary into atomic claims and routes them to engine-supported tools and expert-annotated gold references to assess factual correctness, conceptual coverage, and move-quality judgment. We release a benchmark of 325 position--move pairs spanning pedagogical, tournament, and critical positions, including 125 positions with expert-verified gold atoms and a five-class error taxonomy. Evaluating leading proprietary and open-weight models, we find that factual hallucinations remain pervasive in chess commentary: GPT-5.4 without tools produces incorrect sub-claims 22.0% of the time, while smaller open-weight models exceed 40%. Although tool augmentation substantially improves factual correctness and move-quality assessment, coverage of expert strategic and tactical ideas remains limited across all models. Human calibration shows that ACT-Eval's factual judgments fall within the observed range of inter-human agreement, while its coverage scores correlate strongly with human assessments of strategic completeness.