Logical reasoning over natural language requires both semantic interpretation and deductive search. Large language models (LLMs) can propose plausible intermediate derivations, but they often fail to compose them into a complete proof and overpredict uncertainty. Neurosymbolic methods improve search by translating an entire problem into first-order logic and handing it to a prover, but a single bad clause can make the whole translation nonexecutable. We present Hybrid Reasoning, a three-stage pipeline that decouples proposing a proof, validating its steps, and deciding a label. An LLM proposes a structured proof tree with a raw verdict; a theorem prover validates each derivation locally, keeping only the subset it can prove; and an uncertainty-gated repair attempts to re-derive the label from the premises plus the validated derivations, when the raw verdict is UNCERTAIN. Across four benchmarks (FOLIO, ProofWriter, ProverQA, PrOntoQA) and five contemporary LLMs, Hybrid Reasoning is the top-performing method on the two hardest datasets, improving on the strongest baseline by 5.3 points on FOLIO and 4.9 on ProverQA, and reaches ceiling-level accuracy on the easiest. The repair stage operates at 78-98% precision, producing 326 correct relabellings against 19 regressions.

翻译：暂无翻译