Ivan Kartáč

Ivan Kartáč, Kristýna Onderková, Jan Bronec et al.

This paper describes our system submitted to SemEval-2026 Task 11: Disentangling Content and Formal Reasoning in Large Language Models. We present an efficient modular neuro-symbolic approach, combining a symbolic prover with small reasoning LLMs (4B parameters). The system consists of an LLM-based parser that translates natural language syllogisms to a first-order logic (FOL) representation, an automated theorem prover, and two optional modules: machine translation for multilingual inputs and a symbolic retrieval component for the identification of relevant premises. The system achieves competitive accuracy and relatively low content effect on most subtasks. Our ablations show that this approach outperforms LLM-based zero-shot baselines in this parameter size range, but also reveal limited multilingual capabilities of small LLMs. Finally, we include a discussion of the task's main ranking metric and analyze its limitations.

Ivan Kartáč, Mateusz Lango, Ondřej Dušek

Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve strong performance on many reasoning benchmarks, yet these evaluations typically focus on isolated tasks that differ from real-world usage in task-oriented dialogue (TOD). In this setting, LLMs must perform reasoning inherently while generating text and adhering to instructions on role, format, and style. This mismatch raises concerns about whether benchmark performance accurately reflects models' reasoning robustness in TOD setting. We investigate how framing reasoning tasks within TOD affects LLM performance by introducing BOULDER, a new dynamic benchmark covering eight travel-related tasks that require arithmetic, spatial, and temporal reasoning with both commonsense and formal aspects. Each problem is presented in both isolated and dialogue-based variants, enabling controlled comparison while mitigating data contamination. Experiments on eight LLMs reveal a substantial and consistent performance gap between isolated and dialogue settings. Through ablations and qualitative analysis, we show that this gap is largely driven by the multi-turn nature of dialogue, with additional effects from role conditioning and tool-use requirements. Our results highlight the need to evaluate LLM reasoning in realistic interactive scenarios.

Zdeněk Kasner, Vilém Zouhar, Patrícia Schmidtová et al.

Span annotation is the task of localizing and classifying text spans according to custom guidelines. Annotated spans can be used to analyze and evaluate high-quality texts for which single-score metrics fail to provide actionable feedback. Until recently, span annotation was limited to human annotators or fine-tuned models. In this study, we show that large language models (LLMs) can serve as flexible and cost-effective span annotation backbones. To demonstrate their utility, we compare LLMs to skilled human annotators on three diverse span annotation tasks: evaluating data-to-text generation, identifying translation errors, and detecting propaganda techniques. We demonstrate that LLMs achieve inter-annotator agreement (IAA) comparable to human annotators at a fraction of a cost per output annotation. We also manually analyze model outputs, finding that LLMs make errors at a similar rate to human annotators. We release the dataset of more than 40k model and human annotations for further research.