Can LLMs Build a MaxSAT Solver from Papers? The CoreForge Experience

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.

Large Language Models (LLMs) struggle to solve complex combinatorial problems through direct reasoning, so recent neuro-symbolic systems increasingly use them to synthesize executable solvers. A central design question is how the LLM should represent the solver, and whether it should also attempt to optimize search. We introduce CP-SynC-XL, a benchmark of 100 combinatorial problems (4,577 instances), and evaluate three solver-construction paradigms: native algorithmic search (Python), constraint modeling through a Python solver API (Python + OR-Tools), and declarative constraint modeling (MiniZinc + OR-Tools). We find a consistent representational divergence: Python + OR-Tools attains the highest correctness across LLMs, while MiniZinc + OR-Tools has lower absolute coverage despite using the same OR-Tools back-end. Native Python is the most likely to return a schema-valid solution that fails verification, whereas solver-backed paths preserve higher conditional fidelity. On the heuristic axis, prompting for search optimization yields only small median speed-ups (1.03-1.12x) and a strongly bimodal effect: many instances slow down, and correctness drops sharply on a long tail of problems. A paired code-level audit traces these regressions to a recurring heuristic trap. Under an efficiency-oriented prompt, the LLM may replace complete search with local approximations (Python), inject unverified bounds (Python + OR-Tools), or add redundant declarative machinery that overwhelms or over-constrains the model (MiniZinc + OR-Tools). These findings support a conservative design principle for LLM-generated combinatorial solvers: use the LLM primarily to formalize variables, constraints, and objectives for verified solvers, and separately check any LLM-authored search optimization before use.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for tasks that implicitly reduce to Boolean satisfiability (SAT), yet their reasoning ability on SAT remains unclear. We present a systematic study of LLMs on 2-SAT and 3-SAT, together with two canonical reductions, Vertex Cover and discrete 3D packing, to probe representation-invariant reasoning. We first evaluate models using conventional metrics, including accuracy, precision, recall, and F1, as well as the SAT phase-transition setting. We find that these metrics can be misleading: many models obtain high scores by over-predicting satisfiable formulas, fail to reproduce the classical easy-hard-easy signature around the 3-SAT threshold, and degrade sharply as the number of variables grows. To address this problem, we introduce a paired-formula protocol based on minimally different satisfiable and unsatisfiable instances, together with Accurate Differentiation Rate (ADR), which requires both members of each pair to be classified correctly. ADR separates reasoning-oriented models from heuristic ones and correlates with witness validity. Beyond CNF, we test cross-representation consistency by converting CNF to Vertex Cover and 3-SAT to discrete 3D packing. Model decisions on CNF and on the corresponding graph or packing instances agree for most models on more than 80 percent of instances, suggesting stable decision rules across representations. Overall, our results show that SAT is a conservative probe for LLM reasoning, and that paired evaluation with ADR provides a more faithful and representation-robust assessment than conventional metrics.