Making language models solve constraint problems reliably often means having them translate the problem into a formal specification and delegating the search to a sound solver. But the translation is itself a language-model task, and an unfaithful translation makes the solver faithfully solve the wrong problem. Existing pipelines repair only translations that crash, returning the solver's error message and falling silent when the program runs but is wrong. We replace the error message with a proof: when the generated program is unsatisfiable, we extract a minimal unsatisfiable core over the model's own constraints and hand it back the exact set that cannot hold together, a leakage-free signal that localizes the fault. On a new benchmark of 77 problems with an exact oracle, translation to Answer Set Programming is faithful on six of seven domains and fails only on aggregate coverage scheduling, which concentrates the translation tax in one diagnosable pattern. A minimal core, rather than a bare error, is what stops a weaker model from fabricating solutions to infeasible problems, cutting fabrication from 79% to 7%. A strong chain-of-thought baseline meanwhile matches the symbolic route on accuracy, so the route's value is not accuracy but certificates and its refusal to fabricate.
Constraint Answer Set Programming (CASP) is a hybrid reasoning paradigm that combines Answer Set Programming (ASP) with Constraint Processing and Satisfiability Modulo Theories (SMT), enabling powerful declarative encodings of complex combinatorial search problems. This paper presents the design and implementation of EZSMTV3, an extensible SMT-based CASP framework that advances the translational approach to CASP solving. Building upon the foundation of the EZSMT+ system, EZSMTV3 introduces a more expressive input language, supports optimization via weak constraints, and offers foundations for streamlined integration of new constraint types. Rather than implementing custom search procedures, EZSMTV3 leverages state-of-the-art SMT solvers, such as CVC5, YICES, and Z3 to perform reasoning. The paper provides benchmarking results comparing EZSMTV3 with its CASP peers such as CLINGCON, CLINGO[DL], and CLINGO[LP], while showcasing its ability to handle mixed-domain constraints involving both integers and reals. The system provides a robust platform for future extensions and theoretical exploration within the CASP domain.
We present a pipeline for constructing maze structures from input patterns such as text or shapes. The central path-synthesis problem is encoded in Satisfiability Modulo Theories as global constraints on adjacency, continuity, and pattern-constrained coverage, allowing each fixed-bound instance to be solved in one call. The resulting path is either a planar, self-avoiding route or a layered traversal with prescribed over--under crossings, and it serves as a scaffold for constructing planar mazes and three-dimensional realizations of woven mazes. This report extends the published Bridges 2026 conference paper with more representative SMT-LIB examples and a fuller account of how synthesized paths become concrete maze constructions in planar and three-dimensional form.
Designing the architecture of modern networked systems requires navigating a large, combinatorial space of hardware, systems, and configuration choices with complex cross-layer interactions. Architects must balance competing objectives such as performance, cost, and deployability while satisfying compatibility and resource constraints, often relying on scattered rules-of-thumb drawn from benchmarks, papers, documentation, and expert experience. This raises a natural question: can large language models (LLMs) reliably perform this kind of architectural reasoning? We find that they cannot. While LLMs produce plausible configurations, they frequently miss critical constraints, encode incorrect assumptions, and exhibit ``stickiness'' to familiar patterns. A natural workaround--iterative validation via simulation or experimentation--is often prohibitively expensive at scale and, in many cases, infeasible, particularly when comparing hardware-dependent alternatives. Motivated by this gap, we present Kepler, a lightweight reasoning framework for architecture design that combines structured, expert-driven specifications with SMT-based optimization. Kepler encodes architecturally significant properties--requirements, incompatibilities, and qualitative trade-offs--about systems, hardware, and workloads as constraints, and synthesizes feasible designs that optimize user-defined objectives. It operates at an abstract level, capturing ``rules-of-thumb'' rather than detailed system behavior, enabling tractable reasoning while preserving key interactions, and provides explanations for its decisions. Through experiments and case studies, we show that Kepler uncovers interactions missed by LLMs and supports systematic, explainable design exploration.