mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

NP-Hard Lower Bound Complexity for Semantic Self-Verification

arXiv 2501.15446 ↗First posted 26 Jan 2025cs.CL cs.AIcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

We model Semantic Self-Verification (SSV) as the problem of determining whether a statement accurately characterizes its own semantic properties within a given interpretive framework that formalizes a challenge in AI safety and fairness: can an AI system verify that it has correctly interpreted rules intended to govern its behavior? We prove that SSV, in this specification, is NP-complete by constructing a polynomial-time reduction from 3-Satisfiability (3-SAT). Our reduction maps a 3-SAT formula to an instance of SSV involving ambiguous terms with binary interpretations and semantic constraints derived from logical clauses. This establishes that even simplified forms of semantic self-verification should face computational barriers. The NP-complete lower bound has implications for AI safety and fairness approaches that rely on semantic interpretation of instructions, including but not limited to constitutional AI, alignment via natural language, and instruction-following systems. Approaches where an AI system verify its understanding of directives may face this computational barrier. We argue that more realistic verification scenarios likely face even greater complexity.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 45 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Jan 2025.

Builds on

17 of 45 references.

References · 17

  1. 2022Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 5,601
  2. 2017Deep reinforcement learning from human preferencescited by 3,846
  3. 2023Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4cited by 2,579
  4. 2020Learning to summarize from human feedbackcited by 2,562
  5. 2022Red Teaming Language Models with Language Modelscited by 983
  6. 2020Aligning AI With Shared Human Valuescited by 706
  7. 2023RLAIF vs. RLHF: Scaling Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback with AI Feedbackcited by 615
  8. 2018AI safety via debatecited by 384
  9. 2019Using Pre-Training Can Improve Model Robustness and Uncertaintycited by 373
  10. 2016Cooperative Inverse Reinforcement Learningcited by 298
  11. 2019Algorithms for Verifying Deep Neural Networkscited by 221
  12. 2021Why AI is Harder Than We Thinkcited by 40
5 more
  1. 2018Penalizing side effects using stepwise relative reachabilitycited by 38
  2. 2021OVERT: An Algorithm for Safety Verification of Neural Network Control Policies for Nonlinear Systemscited by 37
  3. 2019Embedded Agencycited by 16
  4. 2022Efficient Global Robustness Certification of Neural Networks via Interleaving Twin-Network Encodingcited by 15
  5. 2024When and Why is Persuasion Hard? A Computational Complexity Resultcited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Instantiation-based Formalization of Logical Reasoning Tasks using Language Models and Logical Solvers
  2. 2023A Closer Look at the Self-Verification Abilities of Large Language Models in Logical Reasoning
  3. 2026Verifiable Semantics for Agent-to-Agent Communication
  4. 2026Grading the Graders: Verification Autonomy Levels (L0-L5) for LLM Reasoning
  5. 2026Certifiable Semantic Agreement Among LLM Agents: What the Admissibility Instrument Decides
  6. 2025Typed Chain-of-Thought: A Curry-Howard Framework for Verifying LLM Reasoning
  7. 2026Theoria: Rewrite-Acceptability Verification over Informal Reasoning States
  8. 2025Semantic-Aware Logical Reasoning via a Semiotic Framework