Shaygan Adim

Moein Salimi, Shaygan Adim, Danial Parnian et al.

Regardless of its foundational role in human discovery and sense-making, abductive reasoning--the inference of the most plausible explanation for an observation--has been relatively underexplored in Large Language Models (LLMs). Despite the rapid advancement of LLMs, the exploration of abductive reasoning and its diverse facets has thus far been disjointed rather than cohesive. This paper presents the first survey of abductive reasoning in LLMs, tracing its trajectory from philosophical foundations to contemporary AI implementations. To address the widespread conceptual confusion and disjointed task definitions prevalent in the field, we establish a unified two-stage definition that formally categorizes prior work. This definition disentangles abduction into \textit{Hypothesis Generation}, where models bridge epistemic gaps to produce candidate explanations, and \textit{Hypothesis Selection}, where the generated candidates are evaluated and the most plausible explanation is chosen. Building upon this foundation, we present a comprehensive taxonomy of the literature, categorizing prior work based on their abductive tasks, datasets, underlying methodologies, and evaluation strategies. In order to ground our framework empirically, we conduct a compact benchmark study of current LLMs on abductive tasks, together with targeted comparative analyses across model sizes, model families, evaluation styles, and the distinct generation-versus-selection task typologies. Moreover, by synthesizing recent empirical results, we examine how LLM performance on abductive reasoning relates to deductive and inductive tasks, providing insights into their broader reasoning capabilities. Our analysis reveals critical gaps in current approaches--from static benchmark design and narrow domain coverage to narrow training frameworks and limited mechanistic understanding of abductive processes...

Arash Marioriyad, Shaygan Adim, Nima Alighardashi et al.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly rely on chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting to solve mathematical and logical reasoning tasks. Yet, a central question remains: to what extent are these generated rationales \emph{faithful} to the underlying computations, rather than post-hoc narratives shaped by hints that function as answer shortcuts embedded in the prompt? Following prior work on hinted vs.\ unhinted prompting, we present a systematic study of CoT faithfulness under controlled hint manipulations. Our experimental design spans four datasets (AIME, GSM-Hard, MATH-500, UniADILR), two state-of-the-art models (GPT-4o and Gemini-2-Flash), and a structured set of hint conditions varying in correctness (correct and incorrect), presentation style (sycophancy and data leak), and complexity (raw answers, two-operator expressions, four-operator expressions). We evaluate both task accuracy and whether hints are explicitly acknowledged in the reasoning. Our results reveal three key findings. First, correct hints substantially improve accuracy, especially on harder benchmarks and logical reasoning, while incorrect hints sharply reduce accuracy in tasks with lower baseline competence. Second, acknowledgement of hints is highly uneven: equation-based hints are frequently referenced, whereas raw hints are often adopted silently, indicating that more complex hints push models toward verbalizing their reliance in the reasoning process. Third, presentation style matters: sycophancy prompts encourage overt acknowledgement, while leak-style prompts increase accuracy but promote hidden reliance. This may reflect RLHF-related effects, as sycophancy exploits the human-pleasing side and data leak triggers the self-censoring side. Together, these results demonstrate that LLM reasoning is systematically shaped by shortcuts in ways that obscure faithfulness.