# Logic Sketch Prompting (LSP): A Deterministic and Interpretable Prompting Method

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.22258 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.22258/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Prompting and chain-of-thought reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 7 of its 19 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 24 Dec 2025.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Prompting and chain-of-thought reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/lr/prompting-and-chain-of-thought-reasoning/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 7 of 7)

- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.04388/) (2023)
- [Towards Faithfully Interpretable NLP Systems: How should we define and evaluate faithfulness?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.03685/) (2020)
- [Neural-Symbolic Learning and Reasoning: A Survey and Interpretation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1711.03902/) (2017)
- [Faithful Reasoning Using Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2208.14271/) (2022)
- [Text Modular Networks: Learning to Decompose Tasks in the Language of Existing Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.00751/) (2020)
- [An Empirical Evaluation of Prompting Strategies for Large Language Models in Zero-Shot Clinical Natural Language Processing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.08008/) (2023)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) excel at natural language reasoning but remain unreliable on tasks requiring strict rule adherence, determinism, and auditability. Logic Sketch Prompting (LSP) is a lightweight prompting framework that introduces typed variables, deterministic condition evaluators, and a rule based validator that produces traceable and repeatable outputs. Using two pharmacologic logic compliance tasks, we benchmark LSP against zero shot prompting, chain of thought prompting, and concise prompting across three open weight models: Gemma 2, Mistral, and Llama 3. Across both tasks and all models, LSP consistently achieves the highest accuracy (0.83 to 0.89) and F1 score (0.83 to 0.89), substantially outperforming zero shot prompting (0.24 to 0.60), concise prompts (0.16 to 0.30), and chain of thought prompting (0.56 to 0.75). McNemar tests show statistically significant gains for LSP across nearly all comparisons (p < 0.01). These results demonstrate that LSP improves determinism, interpretability, and consistency without sacrificing performance, supporting its use in clinical, regulated, and safety critical decision support systems.