Solver-Hard Is Not Model-Hard: A Hardness-Controlled Diagnostic for LLM Constraint Reasoning

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.

Reasoning traces of large language models are widely read as containing "breakthrough" moments and early-legible fates. Both readings rest on measurements missing a counterfactual control at the level of the claim; we supply both controls. First, a restart-controlled truncation probe separates when a solution fits the continuation budget from when a prefix carries value that fresh computation cannot buy, comparing per-anchor continuation solve rates against from-scratch restart curves at matched total generated-token budget. Applied to 178 problem-model cells (89 MATH problems x two small open models, an outcome-blind but difficulty-targeted cohort), exactly 1 of 178 cells survives as prefix-limited; restart dose-response separates a compute-starved model from a capability-limited one; and wherever the matched budget lies inside the restart grid, continuing the model's own prefix beats restarting (9 of 9) -- predominantly compute compression rather than expanded reachability. Second, a pre-registered, difficulty-controlled test finds no detectable outcome information in early-window internal signals beyond a problem-difficulty baseline, and two generation-free analyses of public corpora show why this control is needed: a trace-blind difficulty proxy reaches AUROC 0.873 on 192K DeepSeek-R1 generations -- inside the published probe range -- and a closely matched reconstruction of the closest published early-window positive recovers a comparable pooled result (0.849) while within problem it is statistically indistinguishable from chance at all ten anchors (0.496 at t=4); a post-hoc within-targeted probe finds only a small average residual, concentrated in three low-failure problems. High pooled probe AUROCs cannot by themselves establish within-attempt information; a question-only baseline or within-problem evaluation is required.

We introduce MathConstraint, a hard, adaptive benchmark for evaluating the combinatorial reasoning capabilities of LLMs. We combine constraint satisfaction problems with rigorous solver-based verification and design an adaptive generator to create instances that remain challenging as the LLMs improve in their reasoning capabilities. Unlike existing benchmarks that quickly saturate on fixed datasets or use LLM-as-a-judge for checking solutions,MathConstraint uses parameterized problem types that enable scalable generation of arbitrarily difficult and automatically verifiable instances. We release MathConstraint-Easy ($266$ instances), on which frontier models achieve between $72.6\%$ (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) and $87.6\%$ (gpt-5.5) accuracy, and MathConstraint ($329$ instances) on which the same models drop to between $18.5\%$ (claude-4.6-sonnet) and $66.9\%$ (gpt-5.5) accuracy, demonstrating the resilience of our benchmark generator against rapid progress in LLM reasoning capabilities. We evaluate 12 frontier and open-weight models with and without access to a sandboxed Python environment that includes generic SAT/SMT solvers. Tool access roughly doubles frontier accuracy on MathConstraint (mean $+28$pp; up to $+52$pp for claude-4.6-sonnet). Further, halving the tool-call budget from $8$ to $4$ rounds erases up to $37$ points -- a sensitivity that most single-budget benchmarks miss. We release the generator, dataset, and evaluation harness as a robust environment for studying combinatorial reasoning and tool-use behavior under adversarially-tunable difficulty.