Box Maze: A Process-Control Architecture for Reliable LLM Reasoning
Zou Qiang
Core AI workload signals detected from paper context and implementation/artifact evidence.
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.
Results & Benchmarks
No concrete benchmark grounding is available yet. Treat the page as context or an implementation starting point only.
Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate strong generative capabilities but remain vulnerable to hallucination and unreliable reasoning under adversarial prompting.
Implementation Evidence Summary
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
Reproduction Risks
- Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow
Hardware Notes
Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Evidence disclosure
LLM evidence refs: paper.title, summary.hasReliableImplementation, guidance.mode
Evidence graph: 3 refs, 2 links.
Utility signals: depth 60/100, grounding 68/100, status medium.
Implementation Status
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
- No direct maintained implementation was found. Use the paper PDF and citation graph to design a baseline reproduction.
- Start from this likely method family: Reinforcement learning.
- Track assumptions and missing details in an experiment log before coding.
Reproduction readiness
Hardware requirements
- Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
No verified implementation available
- · No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.
No benchmark numbers could be verified. You will not be able to validate reproduction correctness against published numbers.
Hugging Face artifacts
No direct paper-linked artifacts were found. Showing strongest curated related artifacts for faster exploration.
Models
- FazeFlynn/mistral-7b-llm-architecture-expert Curated RelatedDownloads: 73Likes: 2
Datasets
No trustworthy dataset matches right now.
Search datasets on Hugging FaceSpaces
No trustworthy demo spaces right now.
Search spaces on Hugging FaceResearch context
Tasks
Scientific computing
Methods
Reinforcement learning
Domains
Natural Language Processing, Large Language Models
Evaluation & Human Feedback Data
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXExplore Similar Papers
Jump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.
Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.