Label Constraint Modeling

Ensuring the satisfaction of Signal Temporal Logic (STL) specifications under uncertainty is challenging, as reachability-based monitoring provides guarantees but does not indicate how to restore satisfaction when it becomes indeterminate. A key difficulty is identifying which uncertain components actually affect global satisfaction, especially for nested formulas. This paper introduces a logical dependency tracking framework that propagates uncertainty through the STL structure and captures the causal contribution of reachable sets to satisfaction. By associating markers to uncertain predicates and propagating them via three-valued semantics, we extract in milliseconds a compact Disjunctive Normal Form (DNF) of sufficient constraints, avoiding combinatorial enumeration. As an application, we formulate control correction as a minimum-effort optimization problem. Using zonotopic reachability, the derived constraints are enforced via linear programming, yielding corrections that guarantee STL satisfaction under bounded uncertainty and provide certified probabilistic bounds in the stochastic case. We demonstrate the approach on a nonlinear system with nested STL specifications, showing that dependency tracking enables efficient and formally guaranteed correction. The tracking implementation is available at https://github.com/Antoine-Bst/STL-Three-Valued-Clause-Filtering/.

Ensuring safety in reinforcement learning under nonstationarity requires anticipating changes in risk before they lead to unsafe behavior. Existing approaches typically rely on safety constraints defined at design time or updated reactively during execution, assuming that such constraints remain valid over time. However, in nonstationary environments with evolving contexts and changing driving layouts, these assumptions may fail. We propose a framework for proactive safety constraint generation based on context forecasting. The approach infers latent environmental context from observations, predicts its future evolution, and constructs safety constraints adapted to anticipated conditions. This enables the agent to proactively avoid unsafe regions instead of reacting only after safety violations occur. We evaluate the method in driving environments with structured context variation. The experiments include a sweep over nonstationarity intensities and additional held-out driving layouts, including highway, intersection, and racetrack scenarios. Results show that proactive constraint generation substantially reduces collisions under both seen and out-of-training nonstationarity intensities and generally remains effective across held-out driving layouts while maintaining usable task performance. These findings suggest that context-based constraint generation is a promising approach for safe reinforcement learning under nonstationarity.

Natural-language Computer-Aided Design (CAD) code generation aims to turn design intent into executable and editable parametric programs. Large language models (LLMs) make this goal increasingly practical, but useful systems must preserve the construction process behind the rendered geometry. Existing benchmarks and methods mostly focus on how closely the generated CAD model matches the reference geometry, often using metrics such as Intersection over Union (IoU). Such metrics can miss errors in part decomposition, construction hierarchy, Boolean operations, sketch structure, and geometric relations. This gap calls for a representation that makes design intent explicit and lets a system check generated code against that intent. We propose CIT-CAD, a framework that infers a Constraint Intent Tree (CIT) from the input description to represent the intended entities, hierarchy, operations, and relations. The tree has two roles: it guides CAD code generation and defines expected constraints for verification. The framework extracts actual constraints from the generated program, compares them with the expected constraints, and uses mismatches to localize and repair design violations. Experiments show that the framework improves CAD generation performance, with larger gains on more complex multi-entity designs. By turning design intent into an explicit and checkable object, this work is the first attempt to move text-to-CAD generation beyond rendered-geometry matching toward construction-aware synthesis, verification, and repair.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to formulate optimization models from natural-language problem descriptions, yet realistic operations research (OR) requests are often incomplete: missing objectives, constraints, or business rules can change the resulting mathematical program. Existing evaluations largely assume a complete specification and therefore overlook whether an agent knows when clarification is needed before modeling. We introduce OR-Clarify, a benchmark for pre-formulation clarification. Each task presents a partial public problem description, withholds structured hidden slots, and evaluates agents through bounded interaction with a simulated user. The benchmark supports both openended and choice-based clarification, and measures slot recovery, stopping behavior, silent assumptions, and interaction cost. We further propose Interactive Optimization (InterOPT), a two-stage framework that identifies unresolved formulation-critical gaps and uses them to guide whether to ask the next question or to stop. In our choice-based experiments, InterOPT substantially outperforms all baselines in exact slot recovery; in the open-ended setting, it remains competitive with strong prior methods. Together, OR-Clarify and InterOPT reframe OR assistance as a selective completeness decision: clarify when needed, stop when ready, and quantify what remains missing.

Multi-turn dialogues let users revoke constraints as easily as impose them, but revocation does not reliably take effect: models keep enacting withdrawn requirements (occasionally beneath comments asserting their removal), a failure we call \emph{behavioral relapse}, or revocation inertia. No existing instrument measures this influence per clause, predicts it before delivery, or repairs it under matched budgets. \sysname{} closes the three gaps through the model API alone: a contract ledger pairs every constraint with an executable checker, records revocations as tombstones, and compiles the net constraint state ahead of time into a single specification; a sequential ablation probe measures per-clause adherence and incremental behavioral effect; a repair ladder operates under token- and attempt-matched budgets. On \dataname{} (\NTasks{} HumanEval tasks, \NClauses{} verified checkers), relapse at an 8B operating point climbs from \ScaleDelayedMTwo{} to \ScaleDelayedMEight{} as constraint load grows, while stronger models sit at floor. Under matched checkers, model, and budget, ahead-of-time compilation significantly reduces relapse against a no-ledger verifier-retry baseline (\RestoreDiff{}, 95% CI \RestoreDiffCI{}, $p$ \RestoreDiffP{}); adaptive ladder interventions stacked on top add no detectable gain (95% confidence excludes gains $\geq$ \LadderExcludedGain{}). The probe predicts relapse before delivery (AUROC \AurocPrimary{}); a one-sentence tombstone note recovers about a third of the compilation effect and survives a placebo control. At \CostDeliveryFactor{} delivery overhead and \CostTotalHedged{} of API compute for every result, revocation failure becomes a measurable, predictable, and repairable property of dialogue state rather than an invisible one.

The Traveling Salesperson Problem (TSP) is one of the best-known problems in computer science and arises in many engineering applications, such as smart vehicles and intelligent transportation systems. In the "Euclidean" case, each node is defined by its coordinates in the plane and distances are computed using the Euclidean metric. In the Constraint Programming (CP) literature, the Euclidean TSP is typically addressed by computing the full distance matrix and treating it as a general case; however this approach ignores the geometric information carried by the points' coordinates. In this work, we propose new filtering algorithms, implemented in Constraint Logic Programming (CLP), that exploit such geometric information to achieve stronger constraint propagation than existing approaches. Moreover, we show how this methodology can be extended to other Euclidean variants of the TSP, including the Euclidean Generalized Traveling Salesperson Problem (EGTSP), which is relevant in practical routing and logistics applications. Experimental results demonstrate the computational advantages of the proposed approach.

Concept Bottleneck Models (CBMs) provide an interpretable framework by grounding predictions in human-understandable concepts, enabling semantic inspection and test-time intervention. Recent variants have improved CBMs through richer concept representations, uncertainty estimation, and dependency modeling. However, robust reasoning under unreliable concept states remains underexplored. Without such reasoning, misleading semantic evidence can propagate through the bottleneck, compromising both explanations and downstream predictions. To address this issue, we propose ReCBM, an uncertainty-gated relational reasoning framework for CBMs. ReCBM introduces semantically defined concept relations into the bottleneck and uses uncertainty to guide their refinement. By modeling co-occurrence, implication, and exclusion, ReCBM specifies how evidence is exchanged across concepts, while uncertainty modulates the contribution of each concept during this process. Experiments across diverse datasets showed that ReCBM improved concept and task recovery under missing and flipped concepts, supported uncertainty-aware intervention, and extracted compact task-relevant concept subsets without degrading downstream performance.

Planning a degree from official university sources requires solving two problems in order. The institution's curriculum must first be reconstructed from catalogs, departmental pages, JSON endpoints, and PDFs that share no schema, and only then can a student-specific path be optimized under prerequisite logic and overlapping requirement constraints. Coupling the two lets each failure mode hide the other, because a planner that drives its own crawling never learns facts its current plan does not need. We present KnowPlan, which enforces an extraction-first boundary and measures the interface between the stages rather than assuming it. CatalogBrowse explores with no access to any user profile. It scores legal actions by lower-confidence expected marginal gain over a finite set of atomic catalog obligations per unit of source access, parses deterministically through platform adapters with a span-constrained clause-to-AST model fallback, and terminates on a closure certificate over index, schema, provenance, and reference completeness instead of a reward threshold. Its output contract is three provenance-linked JSON documents. DegreeMap consumes only those documents. It compiles them into a typed requirement hypergraph and optimizes lexicographically with CP-SAT over hard feasibility, completion horizon, load and risk, personalized utility, and option value, so that each stage optimizes inside the previous stage's proven optimum and stays certifiable within the solver budget. Across a 100-university broad track and a six-school dense track, CatalogBrowse reaches 96.2% inventory recall and 88.7% masked-source recovery at 47% less source access than an exhaustive crawler, DegreeMap holds 100.0% hard feasibility while improving personalized utility by +0.066 over the strongest baseline, and the full pipeline certifies 99.5% of requests with a utility gap to the privileged gold graph of 0.015.

Large language models can derive a plausible mathematical object yet still violate explicit requirements--for example, by omitting a modular reduction, returning a non-integer, or using the wrong encoded answer form. We introduce Constraint-First Reasoning (CFR), a training-free two-stage prompting protocol: Stage 1 extracts and summarizes constraints entailed by the problem, and Stage 2 solves while checking intermediate and final results against that summary. Routed-CFR activates the two-stage protocol only when a text-only regex router detects restrictive cues; otherwise it uses direct chain-of-thought (CoT). Across AIME, CMIMC, BRUMO, and AIMO_AMC, the method improves direct CoT on multiple backbones. We further report convention-controlled routing experiments, matched prompting baselines, problem-level paired tests, decoding robustness, constraint-quality audits, total-token accounting, and an OlympiadBench evaluation. These analyses position CFR as a targeted test-time intervention whose benefit depends on recoverable constraints and reliable Stage 1 extraction, rather than as a general-purpose replacement for mathematical reasoning.

Recent large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable progress in constraint-aware navigation, maze reasoning, and graph reasoning. However, their ability to reason about complex routing problems under strict geometric, topological, and electrical constraints remains largely unexplored, despite routing being one of the most challenging and critical stages of electronic design automation (EDA). To bridge this gap, we introduce OmniRouting, the first large-scale benchmark designed to evaluate LLMs on printed-circuit-board (PCB) routing reasoning under real-world industrial design-rule, manufacturability, and connectivity constraints. OmniRouting contains 1,681 industrial-grade schematic-coupled PCB designs, including board geometries, routable component placements by human engineers, footprints, pad locations, netlists, stackup information, and routing constraints. The benchmark comprises four tasks: (1) geometric routing reasoning, generating physically valid copper traces, vias, and layer assignments to connect circuit nets within constrained board regions; (2) design-rule-aware routing reasoning, producing routable layouts that satisfy clearance, trace-width, via, obstacle-avoidance, and board-boundary constraints; (3) electrical functionality reasoning, preserving schematic-specified connectivity while reasoning over net names and functional roles to produce electrically correct routing; and (4) tool-augmented agentic routing, leveraging external tools for tasks (1)-(3). Our results reveal substantial limitations of current LMMs in PCB routing, including weak path-planning capabilities, poor adherence to design-rule constraints, and inconsistent preservation of electrical functionality. We will open-source all benchmark data, evaluation code, and tool interfaces to facilitate future research.

Professional-document review is a constraint-checking problem in which decisions depend on relations among text, geometry, pages, and document revisions. We present an evidence-grounded pipeline that normalizes extracted facts, executes four-state rules deterministically, retains source spans, and escalates unresolved cases. We evaluate its PDF evidence allocator on 160 reference-based tasks from 29 construction projects using a repeated four-system test and a disjoint two-system breadth extension. In the repeated test, reallocating a four-image budget from retrieved page overviews to one overview and three overlapping tiles improves project-family standardized decision accuracy by 10.6 percentage points (95% project-cluster bootstrap CI: 4.3 to 18.0; exact p = 0.031). This effect does not persist in the broader block: Region-RAG changes accuracy by -4.1 points (95% CI: -10.2 to 1.9; exact p = 0.209), while an equal-image sensitivity favors page breadth. Exact finding-set recovery remains low, false passes remain common, and repeated-run agreement is poorly calibrated. The results identify a resolution-breadth trade-off rather than a universal advantage for region-focused evidence, motivating rule-aware evidence routing and expert review.

Combinatorial problems appear in numerous industrial applications. A common approach is to formulate these problems as declarative constraint models that can subsequently be compiled to and solved by a range of back-end solvers. Recent work shows that Large Language Models (LLMs) can produce correct models from natural language, but even a correct model can be expensive to solve because performance remains sensitive to modelling choices. In this work, we investigate whether LLMs can automate performance-oriented model reformulation. Inspired by Automatic Heuristic Design (AHD), we use an evolutionary framework in which an LLM proposes candidate reformulations that are verified and benchmarked against the user-defined baseline model. We compare AHD-adapted search strategies that control which prior attempts, instructions, and measured feedback enter each prompt. Existing retention strategies prioritize recency or performance, but do not explicitly diversify the context. To cover this gap, we introduce Profile-Diverse Retention (PDR), which applies Maximal Marginal Relevance (MMR) to instance-level runtime vectors to retain behaviourally diverse attempts. We systematically evaluate the strategies on eight CSPLib problems using validation-based final model selection. The results show that: (i) iterative reformulation can produce substantial held-out speedups; (ii) strategies that keep the retained context diverse outperform those that retain only recent or the fastest attempts; and (iii) validation-based selection improves the held-out speedup of every strategy.

SHACL shapes enable data graph validation, making automatic shape learning essential for knowledge graph applications. We investigate the well-known fitting approach to this task: given sets P and N of positive and negative example nodes from an input graph, compute a shape expression C, possibly using shape names defined in a recursive shape catalogue, that validates at every node in P and none in N. We focus on the case where C is written in a core fragment of SHACL corresponding to the Description Logic ELI. For the catalogue, we consider the well-founded, stable, and supported semantics. We address fitting existence and most specific fitting computation, establish tight exponential-time upper bounds for both problems, and obtain polynomial bounds for relevant special cases.

Knowledge graph engineering often distributes accepted state, observations, constraints, processes, and hypothetical scenarios across artifacts whose combined execution contract remains external. We present PULSE, an Object-Process-Methodology-inspired language that localizes four operational roles and their write effects in one typed runtime. Here, modes denote operational roles rather than modal or deontic logic. The implemented contract fixes evidence non-overwrite, branch isolation, grounded multi-subject timers, guarded state change, and declaration-ranked event ordering over time and space; an external runner still decides whether evidence becomes an authoritative move. GeoSPARQL, SOSA, and SHACL remain generated views. A core calculus gives an effect-confinement lemma and six safety properties. Lean 4 checks kernel analogues for positions, evidence, clocks, monitors, atomicity, and branch source retention; 88 tests, 3,534 bounded checks, and 32 Lean/Python runtime-kernel cases bound the implementation claim to the checked cases. First-author implementations of a standards composition and a separate Sismic statechart reproduce the tested cold-chain trace. Across 37,440 generated temporal traces, PULSE matches a separate workflow and distinguishes ten single-field mutants. On the complete NOAA IBTrACS since1980 subset it agrees with GEOS and an event sweep on 1,476,290 transition-zone pairs, including 4,800 sampled and 12,831 duration-qualified events. Project-specific GeoSPARQL probes measure interface coverage. Overall, the results support contract localization, safety arguments, and trace parity for the tested fragment; language superiority and usability remain outside the evaluation.

Large language models now write a growing share of the world's code, increasingly inside agents and serving systems that compile, execute, or dispatch generated code without line-by-line review. This works well for mainstream languages but remains brittle for low-resource programming surfaces such as domain-specific languages, custom library APIs, and command-line tools. Even under grammar-constrained decoding, a model can still produce references invalid in the current environment: a buffer never declared, a column absent from the schema, a function the library does not provide, or an unsupported CLI option. This paper introduces decode-time grammars: grammar fragments instantiated during generation from a runtime environment Gamma. A region-specific policy selects a fragment for each hole, and a tightening operator replaces open reference positions with Gamma-typed slots whose candidates are exactly the names, fields, APIs, or options available at that point. Newly generated declarations enter Gamma before later regions are decoded, so the constraining grammar can depend on the prefix already generated. This ensures not only grammatical correctness but also semantic correctness, by preventing references to undefined symbols. We formalize grammar fragments as environment-indexed grammars ordered by refinement, prove No-Ghost soundness for Gamma-slotted fragments, show that refinement preserves this support-set guarantee, and characterize the boundary of mask-enforceable properties. We implement the approach in gproj with offline grammar induction and online policy resolution. Across TileLang, SQL, and P4, with models from 0.6B to 236B parameters, gproj eliminates ghost references by construction at moderate overhead over standard constrained decoding.

ETAS is a programming language for agent systems that treats model-backed agents, tool calls, prompts, typed memory, human approvals, policies, and execution traces as semantic program elements rather than library conventions. It separates deterministic computation from agentic nondeterminism and externally visible actions while preserving a direct programming style. We present the core design of ETAS. Its static semantics assigns ordinary types through spec conformance and tracks each computation with two behavioral indices: an escaping effect row and a persistent abstraction of the typed action trace it may request. Specs form a terminating compile-time constraint calculus: type specs provide evidence for polymorphism and resource facts, callable specs constrain function and stage shapes, and trace specs express allow, deny, and temporal constraints. Typing checks requested traces against compiled monitors and emits residual obligations when dynamic resources preclude a complete static proof. The dynamic semantics distinguish requested, handled, denied, and committed events; handlers interpret typed actions without making their requests invisible to authorization or audit. We formalize a core calculus and state preservation, progress, type/effect soundness, handler trace-transparency, and policy safety. We also implement ETAS in Rust with a command-line interface, typed HIR checks, effect and policy diagnostics, handler checks, and trace-aware execution hooks. ETAS provides a programming-language foundation for reasoning about authorization, nondeterminism, recovery, and audit evidence before and during agent execution.

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.

Autoregressive multimodal large language models (MLLMs) suffer from error snowballing: a single incorrect inference early in a chainof-thought (CoT) trace corrupts all downstream reasoning. We find that in state-of-the-art open-source MLLMs, once the first error occurs, the reasoning cascades into failure across all remaining steps in 65% of such cases (a metric we term the snowball rate). Existing mitigations-sampling multiple chains, post-hoc self-verification, or full program synthesis-either lack symbolic grounding, catch errors too late, or sacrifice the flexibility of natural language reasoning. We propose Constraint-Anchored Reasoning Traces (CART), a neuro-symbolic framework that trains MLLMs to interleave natural language reasoning steps with symbolic constraint assertions: lightweight, machine-checkable statements about visual content (e.g., count(red_objects) = 3). A dual-pronged Constraint Propagation Module-combining a learned neural grounding head with Boolean Constraint Propagation-continuously verifies these anchors against extracted visual features and checks their mutual logical consistency. When a contradiction is detected, a backtrack controller halts generation and reverts to the last consistent checkpoint, preventing error propagation. A variable-frequency emission mechanism allows the model to adaptively control anchor density, avoiding trace bloat. We construct 218K training instances by augmenting GQA, CLEVR-CoGenT, and VCR with ground-truth constraint annotations derived from scene graphs, and fine-tune open-source MLLMs (LLaVA-NeXT, Qwen2-VL) via LoRA. On five benchmarks, CART reduces the snowball rate from 0.65 to 0.14, improves GQA accuracy by +4.6 percentage points over trainingonly baselines, and achieves 89.1 F1 on POPE-all with at most 18% inference overhead.

Packing for air travel is recurring and error-prone: the checklist must be personal and context-aware, yet feasible under safety rules, item dependencies, and luggage limits. Existing packing assistants are template-driven and generic, or recommendation-driven but unconstrained, leaving users to manually patch regulatory and capacity violations. We propose a reasoning-guided learning framework with three stages: (1) a symbolic engine that generates a regulation-aware seed checklist with explicit dependency structure, (2) a two-stage preference learner that estimates inclusion and priority utilities from user add and remove actions while mitigating survivorship bias, and (3) a CP-SAT optimizer that selects a compact, compliant subset. The architecture instantiates a general pattern for constrained personalization, applicable wherever hard feasibility coexists with sparse preference signals. On 604 labeled trip scenarios, comprising 29K inclusion labels and 343K pairwise comparisons, the symbolic engine attains 99.7% recall and 0.96 rubric validity, compared with 0.78 to 0.81 for frontier LLMs. Gradient-boosted trees and LambdaMART reach an AUC-ROC of 0.943 and an NDCG@5 of 0.923. CP-SAT attains 100% constraint satisfaction, compared with 28% for greedy selection and 10% for random selection. Deployment in FlyEnJoy, a production iOS travel app, doubled checklist completions and reduced editing and completion time.

Despite their strong reasoning capabilities and extensive world knowledge, Large Language Models (LLMs) frequently generate plans that violate task constraints, undermining their reliability in real-world applications. This deficiency arises from a lack of systematic mechanisms to incorporate constraint information during the generation process. While existing approaches attempt to mitigate this by relying on external tools or task decomposition, they fail to enhance the model's intrinsic constraint awareness. To address this, we propose Constraint-Aware Reinforcement Learning (CARL), a novel RL framework designed to strengthen LLMs' intrinsic focus on constraints. CARL introduces a constraint-aware reward by comparing the model's output distributions under constrained and unconstrained inputs, encouraging constraint focus and penalizing neglect. Compatible with various RL frameworks and requiring no external solvers or top models, CARL enables scalable, end-to-end constraint-aware planning. Extensive experiments on BlocksWorld, TravelPlanner, and T-Eval demonstrate that CARL significantly outperforms standard Reinforcement Fine-Tuning (RFT) baselines and state-of-the-art reasoning models, exhibiting a markedly increased focus on constraints.

The computer systems community has recently seen growing interest in AI-driven system evolution, where AI agents iteratively rewrite systems. Frameworks such as AdaEvolve and Engram report 12-60% score improvements over human-designed algorithms. While these results are promising, there are practical concerns if these AI-evolved programs can perform worse on unseen workloads and exhibit scalability regressions. Given the speed and scale of AI-generated code, we need automated mechanisms to uncover such identify hidden weaknesses in AI-evolved systems programs. To this end, we develop AIChilles that takes as input a baseline program $P$ and an AI-evolved program $P'$, AIChilles searches for valid workloads where $P'$ regresses relative to $P$ in correctness, runtime, memory usage, or output quality. To tackle the diversity in system applications, weakness types and potential bugs, AIChilles combines deterministic workload-parameter extraction, agent-based constraint inference, differential oracles, and code-frequency coverage to discover diverse failures. Across five system applications and 30 AI-evolved programs, AIChilles finds 49 distinct hidden weaknesses. We also show that explicitly including AIChilles in the AI-driven development lifecycle can mitigate several of these weaknesses.

We study controlled post-training refusal suppression in routed MoE and hybrid-MoE foundation models, aiming to increase non-refusal target-response behavior while preserving general capability under a compact intervention footprint. Existing broad direction-based edits can perturb general-purpose computation, whereas support-only expert edits often lack sufficient capacity to correct heterogeneous refusal representations. To address this limitation, we introduce Localized Multidirectional Correction (LoMC), a support-gated intervention framework that follows a support-then-correction execution order: it first identifies a compact edit support, then aggregates prototype correction directions into layer-wise correction directions, and finally applies rank-one layer-wise correction only within the selected support. By using the edit support as a structural gating constraint, LoMC increases correction capacity without expanding the intervention scope. Experiments on text-only and multimodal safety benchmarks across four routed backbones show that LoMC substantially improves non-refusal target-response behavior while maintaining general capability under a compact intervention footprint.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in many tasks, yet they struggle with reliably following multiple instructions, either by failing to satisfy individual constraints or by struggling to balance competing constraints simultaneously. We formalize this challenge as the Constraint Adherence Problem (CAP). This paper introduces a novel framework that addresses CAP by representing instructions as a structured knowledge graph of constraints. Our approach, Constraint Relationship Graph Completion (CRGC), explicitly models relationships between constraints, identifies adherence challenges, and discovers ``bridge constraints'' that help the model better focus on and reconcile requirements. Bridge constraints act as auxiliary instructions that make primary constraints more salient and compatible. Unlike existing approaches that enhance instruction following through general training methods, CRGC specifically improves constraint satisfaction by leveraging the model's own knowledge to create better pathways for generation. Experiments across three popular instruction following datasets demonstrate that our approach reduces constraint violations by 39% compared to standard prompting while maintaining reasoning abilities of large reasoning models.

LLMs can plan by either generating action sequences directly as a Planner or translating tasks into domain specific language for an external solver as a Formalizer. While most real-world tasks are asynchronous with non-uniform durations, concurrency, and execution-time constraints, existing benchmarks hardly cover them. We unify these asynchronous planning challenges under a single formulation and introduce the first three benchmarks that address each at scale. We conclude that the choice of formal representation primarily determines whether planning scales: as dependency graphs grow from 5 to 100 actions, Planner collapses from 96% to 5% plan accuracy and PDDL2.1 Formalizer from 13% to 0%, while CP-SAT Formalizer averages 94% and still achieves 83% at 100 actions. Faithfulness diagnostics show that PDDL2.1's predicate-based planning representation becomes brittle compared to general constraint satisfaction programs, when LLMs must keep predicates, effects, and goals consistent. Execution-time updates of planning constraints further degrade performance sharply (Planner 23.9%, PDDL2.1 0.7%, CP-SAT 46.1%), but a state-aware repair strategy that updates only event-induced constraints recovers CP-SAT Formalizer to 84.5%.

Constraint programming practitioners accelerate hard problems through a layered set of techniques applied in order of risk. Standard hardening (symmetry-breaking and implied constraints) is applied first and preserves satisfiability. Streamliner constraints, which restrict search to a structural sub-family of solutions, do not preserve satisfiability and are reserved as a final lever. Existing automated streamliner-synthesis approaches either search a constraint grammar or prompt a Large Language Model directly on the problem model. We propose a different approach: enumerate feasible solutions, train a Convolutional Neural Network contrastively against perturbed non-solutions to detect structural patterns, and translate the CNN's discriminative signal into candidate MiniZinc streamliners through LLM-driven synthesis. The CNN grounds the LLM's constraint generation in observed solution structure rather than model text alone. We evaluate on hardened benchmark models where streamliner discovery is the residual performance lever. Our pipeline achieves 98.8% portfolio time reduction on hardened Vessel Loading, 98.6% on hardened Social Golfers, and 89.4% on Black Hole, with best-single streamliners reaching geometric-mean speedups of 932x, 356x, and 1103x respectively. Discovered streamliners include class-based packing constraints on Vessel Loading, beyond-hardening canonicalisations on Social Golfers, and layout-coordinate bounds on Black Hole.

Long-context and memory systems usually treat personalization as a recall problem. In practice, many failures occur later, when a system commits: it turns noisy hints into hard constraints, drops rare witnesses, forgets downstream obligations, or answers despite infeasibility. We introduce Contract-Bounded Evidence Activation (CBEA) with Lexicographic Commitment Validation (LCV). CBEA activates a bounded evidence set using typed coverage, tail witnesses, and consequence debt; LCV validates structured commitments before prose and routes infeasible states to repair, abstention, or recontract. Across 360 fixtures and three generation backends, CBEA+LCV reaches zero failures within validator scope at 0.49-0.60 availability over attempted runs. Raw and long-context baselines with the same LCV gate reach zero only at 0.003-0.092. A shadow oracle diagnostic marks the limit: CBEA+LCV recalls 0.012 of uncompiled visible facts, while raw recalls 0.53. The result is a bounded operating point: explicit commitment control and 74-75% lower median input payload, not universal memory dominance.

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) allow users to query databases using natural language by translating questions into executable queries. Despite strong progress on tasks such as Text2SQL, Text2SPARQL, and Text2Cypher, most existing methods focus on better prompting, fine-tuning, or iterative refinement. However, they often do not explicitly enforce structural constraints, such as syntactic validity and schema consistency. This can reduce reliability, since generated queries must satisfy both syntax rules and database schema constraints to be executable. In this work, we study how structured constraints can be used in test-time inference for Text2Cypher. We focus on post-generation validation to improve query correctness. We extend a confidence-based inference framework with a sequential filtering process that combines confidence scoring, grammar validation, and schema constraints before final aggregation. This lets us analyze how different constraint types affect generated queries. Our experiments with two instruction-tuned models show that grammar-based filtering improves syntactic validity. Schema-aware filtering further improves execution quality by enforcing consistency with the database structure. However, stronger filtering also increases the number of empty predictions and reduces execution coverage. Overall, we show that adding simple structural checks at test time improves the reliability of Text2Cypher generation, and we provide a clearer view of how syntax and schema constraints contribute differently.

Larger language models consistently outperform smaller ones on reasoning benchmarks, yet the reasoning differences underlying this gap remain underexplored. Across benchmarks in mathematics, physics, chemistry, and programming, we observe stable performance gaps: averaged over datasets, Qwen3-32B outperforms Qwen3-8B by 6.43%, while GPT-OSS-120B exceeds GPT-OSS-20B by 7.38%. To study the reasoning differences behind these gains, we develop AdvCluster, an automated framework that identifies questions where the larger model shows a stable advantage, extracts fine-grained advantage descriptions from paired reasoning traces produced by larger and smaller models, and organizes them through semantic clustering with quantitative evaluation and selection guided by a reviewer model. Our analysis yields a systematic taxonomy of larger model reasoning advantages, spanning both common advantages that recur across domains and specialized advantages associated with particular domains. Across these patterns, a recurring theme is Constraint-Guided Reasoning: larger models are better at identifying explicit and implicit constraints, organizing them into structured reasoning, and using them to rule out infeasible paths and verify intermediate steps.

This study proposes a quantitative framework for profiling LLM dispositions as stable, model-specific regularities in output under repeated, controlled elicitation. Using a structured narrative constraint-selection task administered across six frontier models and three instruction types, we operationalize disposition through two dimensions: "consistency", measured as cross-replication selection overlap via Jaccard similarity, and "diversity", measured as dispersion across options via the inverse Simpson index. We further introduce Narrative Landscape, a PCA-based visualization that maps each model's selection profile into a shared space for direct comparison. Results reveal a clear rigidity-exploration spectrum across model families and show that instruction types shift the geometry of selection spaces even when scalar metrics appear similar, indicating that comparable scores can mask qualitatively distinct selection topologies.

Individual treatment effects are not point-identified from data. The Probability of Necessity and Sufficiency (PNS) circumvents this limitation by characterizing individual-level causality through intersection bounds derived from combined experimental and observational data. In finite samples, however, standard plug-in estimators systematically fail: they violate structural probability constraints and suffer from extremum bias induced by max-min operators, yielding spuriously narrow intervals. We propose a neural framework for finite-sample PNS estimation that resolves both pathologies. We introduce an anchored neural architecture that guarantees structural constraint satisfaction by construction. To correct extremum bias, we employ precision-corrected intersection-bound inference, leveraging Epistemic Neural Networks for scalable, high-dimensional uncertainty quantification. Empirical evaluations confirm that this approach maintains nominal coverage and exact constraint validity in high-dimensional regimes where standard estimators systematically undercover.

Constraint inference is widely considered essential to align reinforcement learning agents with safety boundaries and operational guidelines by observing expert demonstrations. However, existing approaches typically assume homogeneous demonstrations (i.e., generated by a single expert or multiple experts with identical objectives). They also have limited ability to capture individual preferences and often suffer from computational inefficiencies. In this paper, we introduce Multi-Objective Constraint Inference (MOCI), a novel framework designed to jointly extract shared constraints and individual preferences from heterogeneous expert trajectories, where multiple experts pursue different objectives. MOCI effectively models and learns from diverse, and potentially conflicting, behaviors. Empirical evaluations demonstrate that MOCI significantly outperforms existing baselines, achieving improved predictive performance, and maintaining competitive computational efficiency on a standard grid-world benchmark. These results establish MOCI as an accurate, flexible, and computationally practical approach for real-world constraint inference and preference learning tasks.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are prone to factual hallucinations, risking their reliability in real-world applications. Existing hallucination detectors mainly extract micro-level intrinsic patterns for uncertainty quantification or elicit macro-level self-judgments through verbalized prompts. However, these methods address only a single facet of the hallucination, focusing either on implicit neural uncertainty or explicit symbolic reasoning, thereby treating these inherently coupled behaviors in isolation and failing to exploit their interdependence for a holistic view. In this paper, we propose LaaB (Logical Consistency-as-a-Bridge), a framework that bridges neural features and symbolic judgments for hallucination detection. LaaB introduces a "meta-judgment" process to map symbolic labels back into the feature space. By leveraging the inherent logical bridge where response and meta-judgment labels are either the same or opposite based on the self-judgment's semantics, LaaB aligns and integrates dual-view signals via mutual learning and enhances the hallucination detection. Extensive experiments on 4 public datasets, across 4 LLMs, against 8 baselines demonstrate the superiority of LaaB.

SHACL (Shapes Constraint Language) expresses constraints on RDF data by means of so-called shapes. Its central service is validation: verifying whether a data graph complies with a SHACL document. But so far, there are no static analysis services to compare documents. In this paper, we study the following problem: decide whether all graphs that validate one SHACL document also validate another. Unlike previous works that have considered the implication of shape expressions only, we consider documents comprising (recursive) shape definitions and targets. We show that implication (a.k.a. containment) is undecidable under the supported and the stable model semantics, even for the fragment that uses the description logic ALCIO for shape expressions. Under the well-founded semantics, in surprising contrast, it is decidable in single exponential time. Our key technical contribution is a translation of SHACL under the well-founded semantics into the full hybrid mu-calculus, revealing a novel link between well-founded models and a fixed point modal logic, and a worst-case optimal automata-based decision procedure.

How do multi-turn reasoning systems fail? The expected answer is logical contradiction, in which the system's maintained state becomes unsatisfiable. We show that the dominant mode is instead satisfiable drift, where the internal state stays consistent while the returned answer silently violates prior commitments. We build DRIFT-Bench (Decomposing Reasoning Into Failure Types), a solver-instrumented benchmark of 816 test problems across three constraint domains, and evaluate four methods on it across four open-weight models (8B-120B parameters). MUS-Repair, which feeds minimal unsatisfiable subsets back to the generator, is strongest in every setting (+1.8 to +15.0 pp over the best non-MUS baseline). But the central finding is what repair leaves behind. After structured feedback, models rarely contradict themselves. They forget. Residual errors are 98-100% satisfiable drift across all settings, while contradiction drops to near zero. Reliable multi-turn systems must separately validate that the returned answer respects the maintained state. Code is available at https://github.com/kaons-research/drift-bench.

Neurosymbolic systems can satisfy logical constraints during learning without achieving the intended concept-label correspondence; this is a problem known as reasoning shortcuts. We formalize reasoning shortcuts as a constraint satisfaction problem and investigate under which conditions concept mappings are uniquely determined by the constraints. We prove that a discrimination property (requiring that no valid concept mapping can be transformed into another valid mapping by swapping two concept values) is necessary for shortcut-freeness under bijective mappings, but demonstrate via a counterexample that it is insufficient even when the constraint graph is connected. We develop an ASP-based algorithm that verifies whether a given constraint set uniquely determines the intended concept mapping, with proven soundness and completeness. When shortcuts are detected, a greedy repair algorithm eliminates them by augmenting the constraint set, converging in at most $k$ iterations, where $k$ is the number of alternative valid mappings. We further provide a complexity classification: deciding shortcut-freeness is coNP-complete, counting shortcuts is #P-complete, and finding minimal repairs is NP-hard. We also establish sample complexity bounds showing that logarithmically many label queries suffice for disambiguation in favorable cases, while querying all ambiguous positions suffices in the worst case. Experiments across eight benchmark domains validate our approach.

Cross-domain task-oriented dialogue requires reasoning over implicit and explicit feasibility constraints while planning long-horizon, multi-turn actions. Large language models (LLMs) can infer such constraints but are unreliable over long horizons, while Reinforcement learning (RL) optimizes long-horizon behavior yet cannot recover constraints from raw dialogue. Naively coupling LLMs with RL is therefore brittle: unverified or unstructured LLM outputs can corrupt state representations and misguide policy learning. Motivated by this, we propose Verified LLM-Knowledge empowered RL (VLK-RL), a hybrid framework that makes LLM-derived constraint reasoning usable for RL. VLK-RL first elicits candidate constraints with an LLM and then verifies them via a dual-role cross-examination procedure to suppress hallucinations and cross-turn inconsistencies. The verified constraints are mapped into ontology-aligned slot-value representations, yielding a structured, constraint-aware state for RL policy optimization. Experiments across multiple benchmarks demonstrate that VLK-RL significantly improves generalization and robustness, outperforming strong single-model baselines on long-horizon tasks.

When a decoder-only transformer is forced to process matched correct and incorrect single-token continuations of a factual query, the two pathways through hidden-state space diverge: displacement vectors from the query-only representation keep near-equal magnitude but rotate apart, with angular separation growing through mid-depth before late layers resolve an asymmetric outcome. A logit-lens preference in the incorrect run falls far below the equal-probability prior (roughly 11.5x more mass on the incorrect token than the correct one). We read this pattern, rotational divergence then late-layer asymmetric commitment, as the geometric signature of the model externally appearing to reject a wrong continuation, while staying explicit that it is observational, not causal: the incorrect run could equally reflect the model conforming to the token it is forced to carry, which only a random-token control can settle. It holds across six decoder-only transformers spanning four architecture families (Llama, Mistral, Gemma, StableLM) from 1B to 13B parameters; a seventh (Qwen2 1.5B) is flat under our protocol, plausibly a tokenizer artefact, leaving an emergence threshold open. Linear probes recover the distinction at intermediate depth, and cross-domain transfer is structurally asymmetric, a financial-medical corridor transferring far better than transport pairs. Where single-layer activation patching is cleanly interpretable (LLaMA-2 13B, Mistral 7B) it yields no layer band of consistent recovery; a third model (StableLM-2 1.6B) recovers uniformly above the ceiling, which we diagnose as a code-path artefact and exclude. Under this scoped null the late-layer asymmetry is not localized to a single component, fitting a distributed-by-trajectory account rather than single-layer localized recall. We document this with forced-completion probing across seven models, three domains, and 300 queries.

Multi-constraint planning involves identifying, evaluating, and refining candidate plans while satisfying multiple, potentially conflicting constraints. Existing large language model (LLM) approaches face fundamental limitations in this domain. Pure reasoning paradigms, which rely on long natural language chains, are prone to inconsistency, error accumulation, and prohibitive cost as constraints compound. Conversely, LLMs combined with coding- or solver-based strategies lack flexibility: they often generate problem-specific code from scratch or depend on fixed solvers, failing to capture generalizable logic across diverse problems. To address these challenges, we introduce the Scalable COde Planning Engine (SCOPE), a framework that disentangles query-specific reasoning from generic code execution. By separating reasoning from execution, SCOPE produces solver functions that are consistent, deterministic, and reusable across queries while requiring only minimal changes to input parameters. SCOPE achieves state-of-the-art performance while lowering cost and latency. For example, with GPT-4o, it reaches 93.1% success on TravelPlanner, a 61.6% gain over the best baseline (CoT) while cutting inference cost by 1.4x and time by ~4.67x. Code is available at https://github.com/DerrickGXD/SCOPE.

Video Temporal Grounding (VTG) aims to localize specific video segments corresponding to natural language queries. While recent Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) employ Reinforcement Learning to generate Chains-of-Thought (CoT), they typically rely solely on outcome-based supervision. Consequently, this often leads to hallucinations, where the reasoning process becomes disconnected from the visual content and the final prediction. Existing attempts to mitigate this by relying on external supervision from larger models or separate reward models are computationally expensive and prone to rigid patterns. To address these challenges, we propose TAR (Temporal Anchor-Constrained Reasoning), a framework that introduces the temporal anchor (T-anchor) as a transparent and auditable checkpoint mechanism. T-anchor enforces progressive refinement within the CoT, compelling the model to continuously ground its intermediate thoughts in visual evidence and iteratively calibrate temporal predictions, thereby significantly enhancing the faithfulness and autonomy of the reasoning process and final accuracy. Furthermore, we introduce a bootstrapping paradigm that automatically harvests high-quality CoT data using only a standard 7B model, eliminating the dependency on ultra-large models. Extensive experiments demonstrate that TAR achieves state-of-the-art performance and generates faithful, autonomous, and progressively refined reasoning traces.