# Box Maze: A Process-Control Architecture for Reliable LLM Reasoning

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.19182 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.19182/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Test-time compute and efficient thinking, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 6 of its 21 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 19 Mar 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Test-time compute and efficient thinking](https://mlsanity.com/lr/test-time-compute-and-efficient-thinking/)
- LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation / [Process reward models for reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/alignment/process-reward-models-for-reasoning/)
- LLM safety and security / [Safety alignment, refusal and guardrails](https://mlsanity.com/safety/safety-alignment-refusal-and-guardrails/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 6 of 6)

- [GPT-4 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08774/) (2023)
- [On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.07258/) (2021)
- [Let's Verify Step by Step](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.20050/) (2023)
- [Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.08073/) (2022)
- [Solving math word problems with process- and outcome-based feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.14275/) (2022)
- [Detecting Syllable-Level Pronunciation Stress with A Self-Attention Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.00301/) (2023)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate strong generative capabilities but remain vulnerable to hallucination and unreliable reasoning under adversarial prompting. Existing safety approaches -- such as reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) and output filtering -- primarily operate at the behavioral level and may lack explicit architectural mechanisms for enforcing reasoning process integrity. This paper proposes the Box Maze framework, a conceptual process-control architecture that decomposes LLM reasoning into three explicit layers: memory grounding, structured inference, and boundary enforcement. We introduce preliminary simulation-based evaluation involving progressive boundary erosion scenarios across multiple heterogeneous LLM systems (DeepSeek-V3, Doubao, Qwen). Results from n=50 adversarial scenarios suggest that explicit cognitive control layers may improve consistency in boundary maintenance, with architectural constraints reducing boundary failure rates from approximately 40% (baseline RLHF) to below 1% under adversarial conditions. While current validation is simulation-based, these preliminary results indicate that process-level control may offer a promising direction for improving reliability in large language model reasoning.