Satisfiability Solving with LLMs: A Matched-Pair Evaluation of Reasoning Capability

LLM constraint reasoners are often evaluated near the random-SAT phase transition, confounding density and solver hardness. We test instance-level transfer while near-matching clause density. At aligned size bins, with near-matched density and matched maximum clause width, we compare proof-hard expander-Tseitin and proof-easy ladder-Tseitin formulas, pigeonhole anchors, and density-mismatched controls. Theory separates their resolution hardness; a solver-specific Glucose mean-conflict proxy differs by up to $51\times$, and five other solvers preserve the direction. Across three included models (243 instances each; a fourth is excluded for abstention), the near-matched-density accuracy gaps range from $-32$ to $+20$ points, with a pooled gap of $+1.7$ points ($p=0.74$) and a wrong-signed correctness-versus-conflict association ($r=+0.15$). A proof-preserving relabeling lowers accuracy in all five clusters for one model (mean $-93$ points) but not another, exposing model-surface sensitivity. In a preregistered extension, provider-reported completion-token spend does not consistently increase with the proxy after accounting for formula length and censoring. At 16k, the reasoning model spends more on proof-easy matched formulas and exhausts its budget on the solver-easiest UNSAT family; the 32k C1 gap is absent. These scoped dissociations concern verdict accuracy and observed token spend, not certificate solving, exact proof length, or allocation efficiency.

Large Language Models (LLMs) excel at understanding natural language but struggle with optimisation tasks involving multiple constraints and user-defined preferences, which commonly arise in domains such as robotics. We propose a hybrid reasoning approach in which LLMs externalise reasoning through code generation. Given a natural language problem description, an LLM generates Python code that encodes user-defined constraints and preferences as a preference-based Maximum Satisfiability (MaxSAT) problem, which is then solved by an exact MaxSAT solver. To ensure correctness, solutions returned by the model-generated code are independently verified for feasibility and optimality against a canonical MaxSAT encoding, allowing for different encodings and multiple optimal solutions. We evaluate our approach using both open-source and closed-access LLMs on three families of preference-based reasoning tasks, and compare it against direct-answer, chain-of-thought, and program-of-thought baselines using the same models. While these baselines rarely produce feasible solutions, the MaxSAT-based pipeline achieves substantially higher acceptance rates, in some cases exceeding 80%. Our results demonstrate that LLM-driven code generation combined with preference-based MaxSAT enables solver-verifiable optimisation with respect to generated encodings, and substantially improves correctness under independently verified reference semantics.

Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning improves large language model (LLM) performance while also providing an observable interface to the model's reasoning process. Existing approaches that leverage verbalized CoTs to monitor reasoning correctness, however, largely evaluate the semantic correctness or consistency of individual intermediate steps, rather than how the reasoning process evolves across the trace. As a result, failures distributed across the reasoning trajectory, rather than those localized to a single incorrect step, remain comparatively underexplored. Furthermore, verbalized CoTs need not faithfully reflect the model's internal reasoning, motivating analyses that do not treat individual statements as literal accounts of internal computation. In this work, we therefore ask whether the dynamics of visible CoT can be leveraged to systematically distinguish successful from failed reasoning without assuming such semantic faithfulness. We study a range of LLMs on verifiable Boolean satisfiability tasks with variable complexity, enabling controlled comparisons near each model's capability frontier. Tagging CoT sentences by reasoning function reveals premature verification collapse on SAT problems: incorrect traces enter clause checking earlier, repeat similar operations, and finalize sooner. On UNSAT problems, models presumptuously move towards incorrect SAT conclusions, checking candidate assignments rather than deriving contradictions across constructed cases. Subsequently, a targeted proof-search prompt intervention raises Llama3-70B accuracy from 13.3% to 85%, correcting 84.6% of these errors. These results show that capability failures can manifest as distributed, task-dependent changes in the structure of visible reasoning, and that CoT dynamics agnostic to whether the verbalized trace reflects the model's internal computations can help diagnose and correct failures.