3 papers indexed here
We haven’t gathered this author’s papers yet. Follow them and we’ll fetch their work.
Not the right person? Other researchers publish under this name.
This work proposes Ontology-Masked Reasoning Autoencoding (OMRA), a controlled intervention that masks and reconstructs over-explained spans while preserving stance, factual content, and coherence and reduces the measured gap between AI preference and real user engagement.
Large language models are increasingly used to generate and evaluate online content, yet it remains unclear whether the qualities they associate with higher engagement match what real users respond to. We study this question using 1.17 million answers to 25,978 questions from Zhihu, Quora, and Reddit, comparing real platform answers and AI-generated answers across four within-question engagement levels. We introduce Ontological Preference Measurement, which represents answers along three dimensions: logic, affect, and expression. We find a systematic gap between AI preference and real user engagement: as target engagement increases, LLMs add more explicit logical structure, while real user engagement is more strongly associated with affective and expressive salience. We call this tendency logic overbinding. Based on this diagnosis, we propose Ontology-Masked Reasoning Autoencoding (OMRA), a controlled intervention that masks and reconstructs over-explained spans while preserving stance, factual content, and coherence. Across four LLM families, OMRA reduces the measured gap by an average of 54.4%. In human evaluation, OMRA wins 62.4% of pairwise preference judgments against matched real platform answers, even though the real answers are more often judged to be human-written.
Large language models (LLMs) have become powerful tools for language understanding and logical reasoning. However, they still make mistakes when a problem requires both understanding meaning and following logic. A key reason is that natural-language statements often carry implicit semantic relations before any formal reasoning begins. If these hidden meanings are not properly organized, the model may reach incorrect conclusions even when the subsequent reasoning process appears logically valid. Existing methods improve reasoning through decomposition, symbolic translation, external solvers, or self-verification, but pay comparatively less attention to the semantic structure on which reasoning depends. In this paper, we further investigate how semantic organization influences logical reasoning in LLMs. To this end, we propose HexLogicAgent, a framework that first organizes the meaning of natural-language statements and then guides logical reasoning through structured verification. In our investigation, we also make two observations. First, incomplete semantic representations, rather than deductive inference itself, are a major source of logical reasoning failures in LLMs. Second, explicitly modeling the complete structure of semantic opposition substantially delays the degradation of reasoning performance as logical complexity increases. Experiments on challenging logical reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that HexLogicAgent consistently improves reasoning reliability across multiple LLMs. The core idea is supported by a logical hexagon theory, which explains why a complete structure of opposing meanings is necessary for reliable reasoning.
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.
