Ege Cakar

William L. Tong, Ege Cakar, Cengiz Pehlevan

Recent years have witnessed meteoric progress in reasoning models: neural networks that generate intermediate reasoning traces (RTs) before producing a final output. Despite the rapid advancement, our understanding of how RTs support reasoning, and the limits of this paradigm, remain incomplete. To promote greater clarity, we introduce PITA: a novel large-scale dataset of over 23 million statements in propositional logic and their corresponding proofs. As a benchmark for robust reasoning, we focus on length generalization: if a model is trained to determine truth or falsity on statements with proofs up to fixed length, how well does it generalize to statements requiring longer proofs? We propose notions of (1) task depth and (2) task breadth, which measure respectively (1) the number of steps required to solve an example from a task and (2) the number of unique examples across a task. We vary these quantities across subsets of PITA, and find that RT models generalize well on broad and shallow subsets, while deteriorating on narrow and deep subsets relative to non-RT baselines. To determine whether our results are idiosyncratic to PITA or indicative of general phenomena, we compare our results to a simple synthetic task based on syllogisms. Our resulting theory suggests fundamental scalings that limit how well RT models perform on deep tasks, and highlights their generalization strengths on broad tasks. Our findings overall identify fundamental benefits and limitations inherent in using reasoning traces.

Ege Cakar, Per Ola Kristensson

Humans are black boxes -- we cannot observe their neural processes, yet society functions by evaluating verifiable arguments. AI explainability should follow this principle: stakeholders need verifiable reasoning chains, not mechanistic transparency. We propose using structured argumentation to provide a level of explanation and verification neither interpretability nor LLM-generated explanation is able to offer. Our pipeline achieves state-of-the-art 94.44 macro F1 on the AAEC published train/test split (5.7 points above prior work) and $0.81$ macro F1, $\sim$0.07 above previous published results with comparable data setups, for Argumentative MicroTexts relation classification, converting LLM text into argument graphs and enabling verification at each inferential step. We demonstrate this idea on multi-agent risk assessment using the Structured What-If Technique, where specialized agents collaborate transparently to carry out risk assessment otherwise achieved by humans alone. Using Bipolar Assumption-Based Argumentation, we capture support/attack relationships, thereby enabling automatic hallucination detection via fact nodes attacking arguments. We also provide a verification mechanism that enables iterative refinement through test-time feedback without retraining. For easy deployment, we provide a Docker container for the fine-tuned AMT model, and the rest of the code with the Bipolar ABA Python package on GitHub.