LLM Rule Generation for Reliable Automated Reasoning

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing methods struggle to effectively translate natural language questions into symbolic reasoning rules for automated reasoning on diverse content types such as digital images, time series, and sensor data, leading to inefficiencies and potential errors in deriving answers.

Innovation Solution

A method and device utilizing a large language model (LLM) to generate answer set programs by translating problem specifications into rules, ensuring compliance with answer set programming (ASP) syntax, and incorporating automated reasoning to refine and validate these rules.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Adaptability or versatility

If a large language model is used to translate natural language questions into symbolic reasoning rules, then the adaptability to diverse content types is improved, but the reliability of the generated rules deteriorates due to potential syntax errors and semantic inaccuracies

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveadaptability to diverse content typesVSAvoidreliability of generated rules
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The system implements feedback loops where the generated rules are validated against the original question-answer pairs and content. The automated reasoning engine executes the generated rules and compares the derived answers with expected answers, providing feedback to identify and correct syntax errors and semantic inaccuracies in the rules generated by the large language model.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

Solution Approach 2:

An intermediary validation and correction module is introduced between the large language model and the automated reasoning engine. This intermediary component checks the generated rules for syntax compliance, validates semantic correctness, and performs corrections before the rules are executed, thereby improving reliability without compromising adaptability.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

2Reliability

If automated reasoning is implemented to validate generated rules, then the reliability of the reasoning process is improved, but the complexity of the system increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvereliability of reasoning processVSAvoidsystem complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system is segmented into distinct functional modules: a large language model for rule generation, a validation module for syntax checking, a correction module for fixing errors, and an automated reasoning engine for execution. This segmentation allows each component to be optimized independently and simplifies the overall system architecture by clearly defining the responsibilities of each module.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The system incorporates self-service capabilities where the automated reasoning engine validates its own generated rules and performs self-correction. The system automatically identifies syntax errors, retrieves correct rule formulations, and updates the rule set without requiring external intervention, thereby managing complexity through autonomous operation.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

3Manufacturing precision

If syntax validation is performed on generated rules, then the manufacturing precision of the rules is improved, but the productivity of the rule generation process decreases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveprecision of rule generationVSAvoidproductivity of rule generation
Core Design Contradiction:
Manufacturing precisionVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs preliminary syntax validation and error detection immediately after rule generation, before the rules are executed. By catching and correcting syntax errors early in the process, the system avoids time-consuming rework later and maintains high productivity while ensuring precision.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The validation process is optimized to skip redundant checks and focus only on critical syntax elements that are most likely to cause errors. The system rapidly validates essential rule structures without performing exhaustive checks on every aspect, thereby maintaining high precision while minimizing the impact on generation productivity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #21Skipping (Rushing through)

Data Source

PatentEP4703972A1A device and a computer implemented method for determining rules for determining an answer to a question
Publication Date: 2026.03.04 ROBERT BOSCH GMBH
  • EP4703972A1 patent drawingFigure 1~2
  • EP4703972A1 patent drawingFigure 3
  • EP4703972A1 patent drawing

AI summary

A device and a computer implemented method for determining rules for determining an answer to a question about content, in particular content representing a digital image, a time series, for example of sensor data, audio, synthetic data, or data that can be represented as objects and their relations, by automated reasoning on the question, and the content, wherein the method comprises providing (202) a set of rules for determining the answer to the question, providing (208) the question, and the answer, and the content, determining (204) a preprompt for a large language model explaining the set of rules, determining (210) a prompt for the large language model instructing the large language model to add at least one rule to the set of rules such that the answer to the question about the content is derivable by automated reasoning on the question, and the content, and the set of rules including the at least one rule, prompting (206) the large language model with the preprompt, prompting (212) the large language model with the prompt, receiving (214) a response of the large language model to the prompt, wherein the response comprises the at least one rule.