Conflict-Aware Fusion: Mitigating Logic Inertia in Large Language Models via Structured Cognitive Priors

Qiming Bao, Xiaoxuan Fu, Michael Witbrock · Dec 6, 2025 · Citations: 0

Automatic Metrics

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) achieve high accuracy on many reasoning benchmarks but remain brittle under structural perturbations of rule-based systems. We introduce a diagnostic framework with four stress tests -- redundant vs. essential rule deletion, contradictory-rule injection, logic-preserving rewrites, and multi-law stacking -- and use it to expose Logic Inertia: the tendency of generative LLMs (Qwen2/3, TinyLlama, GPT-4o, Gemma-3-4B-IT) and the encoder-only BERT baseline to persist along learned deductive trajectories under inconsistent premises. The collapse is sharp: untreated baselines fall from accuracy 1.00 on the base task to 0.00 on contradiction injection (instance-level exact match), and GPT-4o resolves only 56.0% of contradiction cases. We propose Conflict-Aware Fusion, a four-stage training pipeline that enforces verification-before-deduction as a learned structural prior: (i) SFT establishes the verification preamble; (ii) DPO sharpens the halt-on-contradiction decision boundary; (iii) Logical Invariance REgularisation (LIRE) penalises divergence between logically equivalent rule formulations via symmetric KL; (iv) Reinforcement Learning from Verification Feedback (RLVF) uses a symbolic forward-chaining engine as a deterministic oracle reward, jointly optimising invariance and sensitivity. The pipeline saturates all four primary stress tests for both 1.5B and 8B backbones. We further validate a Phase 2 extension that replaces the propositional oracle with a Lean 4 kernel, attaining 99.0% kernel agreement on the 105 classically-derivable (T) questions within a stratified 187-question Lean-translated sample (overall 71.7% across both polarities), providing a sound upgrade path to formally verified RL training. Code and benchmark: https://github.com/14H034160212/lemo

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 35%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.