mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Eidoku: A Neuro-Symbolic Verification Gate for LLM Reasoning via Structural Constraint Satisfaction

arXiv 2512.20664 ↗First posted 19 Dec 2025cs.AI cs.LOcited by 1

On the map: LLM reasoning → Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation

Abstract (arXiv)

Large Language Models (LLMs) frequently produce hallucinated statements that are assigned high likelihood by the model itself, exposing a fundamental limitation of probability-based verification. This suggests that hallucination is often not a low-confidence phenomenon, but a failure of structural consistency. In this work, we reformulate the verification of LLM reasoning as a Constraint Satisfaction Problem (CSP) operating independently of the generation likelihood. Rather than optimizing for statistical plausibility, we model verification as a feasibility check based on structural violation cost -- the computational cost required to embed a candidate reasoning step into the contextual graph structure. We define a total cost function composed of three proxies: (i) graph connectivity (structural), (ii) feature space consistency (geometric), and (iii) logical entailment (symbolic). Crucially, verification is performed via a lightweight System-2 gate, Eidoku, which rejects candidates exceeding a context-calibrated cost threshold. The threshold is not learned but is derived from the intrinsic statistics of the context, avoiding ad hoc heuristics. We demonstrate that this approach successfully rejects ``smooth falsehoods'' -- statements that are highly probable yet structurally disconnected -- that probability-based verifiers are principally incapable of detecting. Our experiments on a controlled diagnostic dataset show that explicitly enforcing structural constraints allows for the deterministic rejection of this specific class of hallucinations, serving as a neuro-symbolic sanity check for generative reasoning.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 8 of its 17 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 Dec 2025.

Builds on

8 of 17 references.

References · 8

  1. 2022Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 5,708
  2. 2023A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models: Principles, Taxonomy, Challenges, and Open Questionscited by 1,601
  3. 2023SelfCheckGPT: Zero-Resource Black-Box Hallucination Detection for Generative Large Language Modelscited by 810
  4. 2023Chain-of-Verification Reduces Hallucination in Large Language Modelscited by 324
  5. 2024INSIDE: LLMs' Internal States Retain the Power of Hallucination Detectioncited by 323
  6. 2023SAC3: Reliable Hallucination Detection in Black-Box Language Models via Semantic-aware Cross-check Consistencycited by 90
  7. 2024GraphEval: A Knowledge-Graph Based LLM Hallucination Evaluation Frameworkcited by 30
  8. 2024InterrogateLLM: Zero-Resource Hallucination Detection in LLM-Generated Answerscited by 27

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026VERGE: Formal Refinement and Guidance Engine for Verifiable LLM Reasoning
  2. 2025Graph of Verification: Structured Verification of LLM Reasoning with Directed Acyclic Graphs
  3. 2026Pushing the Boundaries of Natural Reasoning: Interleaved Bonus from Formal-Logic Verification
  4. 2024Logically Consistent Language Models via Neuro-Symbolic Integration
  5. 2026Resource-Aware Neuro-Symbolic Reasoning for Local Small Language Models
  6. 2026Can We Trust LLM's Logic? Quantifying Uncertainty, Coherence, and Robustness via a Graph-Based Framework
  7. 2025Reasoning Large Language Model Errors Arise from Hallucinating Critical Problem Features
  8. 2024Reliable Reasoning Beyond Natural Language