Logical reasoning is a core challenge in natural language understanding and a fundamental capability of artificial intelligence, underpinning scientific discovery, mathematical theorem proving, and complex decision-making. Despite the remarkable progress of large language models (LLMs), most current approaches still rely on forward reasoning paradigms, generating step-by-step rationales from premises to conclusions. However, such methods often suffer from redundant inference paths, hallucinated steps, and semantic drift, resulting in inefficient and unreliable reasoning. In this paper, we propose a novel framework, Hypothesis-driven Backward Logical Reasoning (HBLR). The core idea is to integrate confidence-aware symbolic translation with hypothesis-driven backward reasoning. In the translation phase, only high-confidence spans are converted into logical form, such as first-order logic (FOL), while uncertain content remains in natural language. A translation reflection module further ensures semantic fidelity by evaluating symbolic outputs and reverting lossy ones back to text when necessary. In the reasoning phase, HBLR simulates human deductive thinking by assuming the conclusion is true and recursively verifying its premises. A reasoning reflection module further identifies and corrects flawed inference steps, enhancing logical coherence. Extensive experiments on five reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that HBLR consistently outperforms strong baselines in both accuracy and efficiency.

Jiawei Cao, Jie Ouyang, Mingyue Cheng, Zhaomeng Zhou, Chunli Liu, Yupeng Li, Zirui Liu, Shijin Wang. Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2026.

Logical reasoning with large language models (LLMs) has received growing attention. One mainstream approach translates natural language into formal logic and then applies symbolic solvers for deduction. While effective in many tasks, these LLM-based translators often fail to generate consistent symbolic representations when the same concept appears in different linguistic forms. Such inconsistencies break logical coherence and lead to solver errors. However, most existing benchmarks lack this type of linguistic variation, which frequently occurs in real-world text, leaving the problem underexplored. To address this gap, we present SoLT, a benchmark that systematically rewrites reasoning datasets into diverse yet logically equivalent forms across multiple levels. Beyond evaluation, SoLT also provides a general method to enrich any dataset with linguistic diversity while preserving both meaning and logic. To further enhance the stability of LLM-based reasoning, we propose MenTaL, which explicitly guides models to build a concept–symbol mapping table during translation. By linking equivalent expressions to shared symbols, MenTaL maintains consistency and mitigates symbol drift. Experiments on SoLT demonstrate that LLMs indeed suffer from inconsistent symbol mapping under linguistic variation, leading to significant drops in reasoning accuracy. Meanwhile, applying MenTaL brings clear and stable performance improvements across diverse inputs. Overall, our findings reveal that overlooking linguistic diversity hides key weaknesses in LLM-based translators, and our work offers a step toward more reliable logical reasoning in varied real-world scenarios. Our code is available at https://github.com/wufeiwuwoshihua/LinguDiver.

The primary form of user-internet engagement is shifting from leveraging implicit feedback signals, such as browsing and clicks, to harnessing the rich explicit feedback provided by textual interactive behaviors. This shift unlocks a rich source of user textual history, presenting a profound opportunity for a deeper form of personalization. However, prevailing approaches offer only a shallow form of personalization, as they treat user history as a flat list of texts for retrieval and fail to model the rich temporal and semantic structures reflecting dynamic nature of user interests. In this work, we propose MemWeaver, a framework that weaves the user's entire textual history into a hierarchical memory to power deeply personalized generation. The core innovation of our memory lies in its ability to capture both the temporal evolution of interests and the semantic relationships between different activities. To achieve this, MemWeaver builds two complementary memory components that both integrate temporal and semantic information, but at different levels of abstraction: behavioral memory, which captures specific user actions, and cognitive memory, which represents long-term preferences. This dual-component memory serves as a comprehensive representation of the user, allowing large language models (LLMs) to reason over both concrete behaviors and abstracted cognitive traits. This leads to content generation that is deeply aligned with their latent preferences. Experiments on the six datasets of the Language Model Personalization (LaMP) benchmark validate the efficacy of MemWeaver. Our code is available. https://github.com/fishsure/MemWeaver.

Computerized Adaptive Testing (CAT) offers an efficient and personalized method for assessing examinee proficiency by dynamically adjusting test questions based on individual performance. Compared to traditional, non-personalized testing methods, CAT requires fewer questions and provides more accurate assessments. As a result, CAT has been widely adopted across various fields, including education, healthcare, sports, sociology, and the evaluation of AI models. While traditional methods rely on psychometrics and statistics, the increasing complexity of large-scale testing has spurred the integration of machine learning techniques. This paper aims to provide a machine learning-focused survey on CAT, presenting a fresh perspective on this adaptive testing paradigm. We delve into measurement models, question selection algorithm, bank construction, and test control within CAT, exploring how machine learning can optimize these components. Through an analysis of current methods, strengths, limitations, and challenges, we strive to develop robust, fair, and efficient CAT systems. By bridging psychometric-driven CAT research with machine learning, this survey advocates for a more inclusive and interdisciplinary approach to the future of adaptive testing.

Arena-based evaluation is a fundamental yet significant evaluation paradigm for modern AI models, especially large language models (LLMs). Existing framework based on ELO rating system suffers from the inevitable instability problem due to ranking inconsistency and the lack of attention to the varying abilities of annotators. In this paper, we introduce a novel stable arena framework to address these issues by enhancing the ELO Rating System. Specifically, we replace the iterative update method with a Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) approach, m-ELO, and provide theoretical proof of the consistency and stability of the MLE approach for model ranking. Additionally, we proposed the am-ELO, which modify the Elo Rating’s probability function to incorporate annotator abilities, enabling the simultaneous estimation of model scores and annotator reliability. Experiments demonstrate that this method ensures stability, proving that this framework offers a more robust, accurate, and stable evaluation method for LLMs.

Human ability estimation is essential for educational assessment, career advancement, and professional certification. Adaptive Testing systems can improve estimation efficiency by selecting fewer, targeted questions, and are widely used in exams, e.g., GRE, GMAT, and Duolingo English Test. However, selecting an optimal subset of questions remains a challenging nested optimization problem. Existing methods rely on costly approximations or data-intensive training, making them unsuitable for today's large-scale and complex testing environments. Thus, we propose a Closed-Form solution for question subset selection in Adaptive Testing. It directly minimizes ability estimation error by reducing ability parameter's gradient bias while maintaining Hessian stability, which enables a simple greedy algorithm for question selection. Moreover, it can quantify the impact of human behavioral perturbations on ability estimation. Extensive experiments on large-scale educational datasets demonstrate that it reduces the number of required questions by 10% compared to SOTA methods, while maintaining the same estimation accuracy.

Chinese Spelling Check (CSC) aims to identify and correct spelling errors in Chinese texts, where enhanced semantic understanding of a sentence can significantly improve correction accuracy.Recently, Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional mastery of world knowledge and semantic understanding, rendering them more robust against spelling errors.However, the application of LLMs in CSC is a double-edged sword, as they tend to unnecessarily alter sentence length and modify rare but correctly used phrases.In this paper, by leveraging the capabilities of LLMs while mitigating their limitations, we propose a novel plug-and-play Alignment-and-Replacement Module (ARM) that enhances the performance of existing CSC models and without the need for retraining or fine-tuning.Experiment results and analysis on three benchmark datasets demonstrate the effectiveness and competitiveness of the proposed module.

As the deep integration of machine learning and intelligent education, Computerized Adaptive Testing (CAT) has received more and more research attention. Compared to traditional paper-and-pencil tests, CAT can deliver both personalized and interactive assessments by automatically adjusting testing questions according to the performance of students during the test process. Therefore, CAT has been recognized as an efficient testing methodology capable of accurately estimating a student’s ability with a minimal number of questions, leading to its widespread adoption in mainstream selective exams such as the GMAT and GRE. However, just improving the accuracy of ability estimation is far from satisfactory in the real-world scenarios, since an accurate ranking of students is usually more important (e.g., in high-stakes exams). Considering the shortage of existing CAT solutions in student ranking, this paper emphasizes the importance of aligning test outcomes (student ranks) with the true underlying abilities of students. Along this line, different from the conventional independent testing paradigm among students, we propose a novel collaborative framework, Collaborative Computerized Adaptive Testing (CCAT), that leverages inter-student information to enhance student ranking. By using collaborative students as anchors to assist in ranking test-takers, CCAT can give both theoretical guarantees and experimental validation for ensuring ranking consistency.