The Recursive Coherence Principle: A Formal Constraint on Scalable Intelligence, Alignment, and Reasoning Architecture
On the map: LLM reasoning → Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation
Abstract (arXiv)
Intelligence-biological, artificial, or collective-requires structural coherence across recursive reasoning processes to scale effectively. As complex systems grow, coherence becomes fragile unless a higher-order structure ensures semantic consistency. This paper introduces the Recursive Coherence Principle (RCP): a foundational constraint stating that for any reasoning system of order N, composed of systems operating over conceptual spaces of order N-1, semantic coherence is preserved only by a recursively evaluable generalization operator that spans and aligns those lower-order conceptual spaces. Crucially, this coherence enables structural alignment. Without recursive coherence, no system can reliably preserve goals, meanings, or reasoning consistency at scale. We formally define the Functional Model of Intelligence (FMI) as the only known operator capable of satisfying the RCP at any scale. The FMI is a minimal, composable architecture with internal functions (evaluation, modeling, adaptation, stability, decomposition, bridging) and external functions (storage, recall, System 1 and System 2 reasoning) vital for preserving semantic structure across inference and coordination layers. We prove that any system lacking the FMI will experience recursive coherence breakdown as it scales, arguing that common AI issues like misalignment, hallucination, and instability are symptoms of this structural coherence loss. Unlike other foundational principles, RCP uniquely captures the internal, recursive dynamics needed for coherent, alignable intelligence, modeling semantic coherence under recursion. This work significantly impacts AI alignment, advocating a shift from behavioral constraints to structural coherence, and offers a pathway for safely generalizable, robustly coherent AI at scale.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 0 of its 2 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Jul 2025.
Builds on
0 of 2 references.
No references here yet.
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Reasoning Systems as Structured Processes: Foundations, Failures, and Formal Criteria
- 2026The Reasoning Error About Reasoning: Why Different Types of Reasoning Require Different Representational Structures
- 2026Coherence Under Commitment: Probing Generalization and Vacuous Memorization in LLM Logical Reasoning
- 2024Possible Principles for Aligned Structure Learning Agents
- 2025From Chaos to Order: The Atomic Reasoner Framework for Fine-grained Reasoning in Large Language Models
- 2026MELD: A Protocol for Merging Knowledge Across Distributed Agentic Memories
- 2026Local verification cannot detect non-transportability: a cohomological theory of context preservation in agentic reasoning
- 2025Hybrid Models for Natural Language Reasoning: The Case of Syllogistic Logic