Abstract
In the LLM-as-formalizer paradigm, a large language model translates a problem into a formal program and leaves the search to a solver, gaining the solver's guarantees. Formalizers are now often reasoning models that write a long reasoning trace before the program, yet they are judged only by the program's output. We find that the trace routinely does the solver's job, assigning, testing and ruling out values until it often reaches the full answer; we call this solver-like behavior (SLB). We define an ontology of SLB over the trace, the program and its output, and use LLM judges, checked against human labels, to label 2,000 generations from three reasoning models on four constraint satisfaction datasets, each formalized in a declarative and an imperative formal language. SLB appears in 85% of traces and takes 24% of reasoning tokens, yet the program usually recomputes the answer, so the effort is redundant. The 9% of programs that inherit the trace's answer also inherit its errors, and pass output-based evaluation whenever that answer is correct. The amount of SLB is not associated with accuracy, and SLB is more common in imperative Python than in declarative Z3 or PDDL. Cautionary prompts reduce it by only a quarter, but hiding the problem's values behind placeholders, which the program receives only at run time, removes 97% of it without loss of accuracy. Formalizers should therefore be evaluated by how their programs are reached, not only by what they output.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.02395
