Sign inGet started
Paper · arXiv

Solver-Hard Is Not Model-Hard: A Hardness-Controlled Diagnostic for LLM Constraint Reasoning

LLM constraint reasoners are often evaluated near the random-SAT phase transition, confounding density and solver hardness. We test instance-level transfer while near-matching clause density. At aligned size bins, with near-matched density and matched maximum clause width, we compare proof-hard expander-Tseitin and proof-easy ladder-Tseitin formulas, pigeonhole anchors, and density-mismatched controls. Theory separates their resolution hardness; a solver-specific Glucose mean-conflict proxy differs by up to $51\times$, and five other solvers preserve the direction. Across three included models (243 instances each; a fourth is excluded for abstention), the near-matched-density accuracy gap...

AuthorsLucky Verma
Primary categorycs.LG
Published19 July 2026
Last updated at source19 July 2026
cs.LGcs.AIcs.LO
Embed this entry
<iframe src="https://silytics.si/embed/item/e13c46fe-d4e7-4e02-ac29-55fb404b4775" width="420" height="190" style="border:0" loading="lazy" title="Silytics entry"></iframe>

Free, no tracking. More about feeds and embeds.

Silytics shows public metadata from arXiv and links to the original. Information may be incomplete or out of date. Last refreshed 17 October 2026. Licenses and terms of the original apply to the work itself. Not financial, legal or professional advice.