Discovering a Shared Logical Subspace: Steering LLM Logical Reasoning via Alignment of Natural-Language and Symbolic Views

arXiv cs.CL / 4/22/2026

📰 NewsIdeas & Deep AnalysisModels & Research

Key Points

  • The paper investigates whether LLMs have a shared internal logical subspace that can align natural-language reasoning with symbolic-language reasoning, rather than treating them as separate approaches.
  • It uses Canonical Correlation Analysis on paired residual activations from natural-language and symbolic reasoning chains to learn a low-dimensional subspace with maximal correlation across views.
  • The authors propose a training-free method to steer an LLM’s reasoning chain along the learned logical subspace by leveraging signals from both natural and symbolic perspectives.
  • Experiments on four logical reasoning benchmarks show accuracy gains of up to 11 percentage points and strong generalization to out-of-domain problems.
  • Overall, the work suggests a mechanism for improving multi-step logical reasoning by aligning internal representations across different “views” of the same reasoning task.

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) still struggle with multi-step logical reasoning. Existing approaches either purely refine the reasoning chain in natural language form or attach a symbolic solver as an external module. In this work, we instead ask whether LLMs contain a shared internal logical subspace that simultaneously aligns natural-language and symbolic-language views of the reasoning process. Our hypothesis is that this logical subspace captures logical reasoning capabilities in LLMs that are shared across views while remaining independent of surface forms. To verify this, we employ Canonical Correlation Analysis on the paired residual activations from natural-language and symbolic-language reasoning chains, learning a low-dimensional subspace with maximum cross-view correlation. Furthermore, we design a training-free approach that steers LLMs reasoning chain along this logical subspace, thereby leveraging the complementary reasoning signals from both views. Experiments on four logical reasoning benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach, improving accuracy by up to 11 percentage points and generalizing well on out-of-domain problems.