Eidoku: A Neuro-Symbolic Verification Gate for LLM Reasoning via Structural Constraint Satisfaction
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
- 2022Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 5,708
- 2023A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models: Principles, Taxonomy, Challenges, and Open Questionscited by 1,601
- 2023SelfCheckGPT: Zero-Resource Black-Box Hallucination Detection for Generative Large Language Modelscited by 810
- 2023Chain-of-Verification Reduces Hallucination in Large Language Modelscited by 324
- 2024INSIDE: LLMs' Internal States Retain the Power of Hallucination Detectioncited by 323
- 2023SAC3: Reliable Hallucination Detection in Black-Box Language Models via Semantic-aware Cross-check Consistencycited by 90
- 2024GraphEval: A Knowledge-Graph Based LLM Hallucination Evaluation Frameworkcited by 30
- 2024InterrogateLLM: Zero-Resource Hallucination Detection in LLM-Generated Answerscited by 27
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026VERGE: Formal Refinement and Guidance Engine for Verifiable LLM Reasoning
- 2025Graph of Verification: Structured Verification of LLM Reasoning with Directed Acyclic Graphs
- 2026Pushing the Boundaries of Natural Reasoning: Interleaved Bonus from Formal-Logic Verification
- 2024Logically Consistent Language Models via Neuro-Symbolic Integration
- 2026Resource-Aware Neuro-Symbolic Reasoning for Local Small Language Models
- 2026Can We Trust LLM's Logic? Quantifying Uncertainty, Coherence, and Robustness via a Graph-Based Framework
- 2025Reasoning Large Language Model Errors Arise from Hallucinating Critical Problem Features
- 2024Reliable Reasoning Beyond Natural Language