Share your thoughts, 1 month free Claude Pro on usSee more
WorkDL logo mark

Constraints-of-Thought: A Framework for Constrained Reasoning in Language-Model-Guided Search

About

While researchers have made significant progress in enabling large language models (LLMs) to perform multi-step planning, LLMs struggle to ensure that those plans align with high-level user intent and satisfy symbolic constraints, especially in complex, multi-step domains. Existing reasoning approaches such as Chain-of-Thought (CoT), Tree-of-Thought (ToT), and verifier-augmented methods, expand the search space but often yield infeasible actions or hallucinated steps. To overcome these limitations, we propose Constraints-of-Thought (Const-o-T), a framework that provides a structured prior that enables Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) focus search on semantically meaningful paths. Each reasoning step is represented as an (intent, constraint) pair, which serves both to compress the search space and enforce validity. Unlike prior methods that merely generate reasoning traces or validate outputs post hoc, Const-o-T uses (intent, constraint)pairs to actively focus the search toward feasible and meaningful plans. We integrate Const-o-T into MCTS using a structured representation of intent-constraint pairs constraints prune infeasible branches and guide exploration toward semantically valid actions, improving planning efficiency and verifiable decision-making. We demonstrate across three domains Risk game, CAD code generation, and arithmetic reasoning that our approach outperforms baselines, yielding higher accuracy and stronger structural alignment. Our contribution is to demonstrate that Const-of-T offers a generalizable foundation for constraint-guided reasoning, enabling more efficient, constraint-aligned, and domain-adaptable planning with LLMs.

Kamel Alrashedy, Vriksha Srihari, Zulfiqar Zaidi, Ridam Srivastava, Pradyumna Tambwekar, Matthew Gombolay• 2025

Related benchmarks

TaskDatasetResultRank
Mathematical ReasoningGSM8K
Accuracy96.2
1362
Scientific ReasoningGPQA
Accuracy70.2
75
Troop placement predictionRisk
EMD0.51
66
Mathematical ReasoningMATH 500
Accuracy (avg@4)83.1
30
CAD GenerationCADPrompt
HD0.12
18
Showing 5 of 5 rows

Other info

Follow for update