Neuro-symbolic runtime monitors for drug discovery LLM agents (Mozi framework) will reduce unconstrained tool-use violations by >40% when enforced via cryptographically verifiable authorization (e.g., Datalog policies with ZK-proofs), as measured by compliance failure rates in high-stakes molecular docking workflows.
Adversarial Debate Score
68% survival rate under critique
Expert panel critique
Independent views, each critiquing the hypothesis on its own — the score rewards genuine disagreement and discounts consensus.
Related patents (prior art)
This hypothesis overlaps subject matter covered by existing third-party patents. It is published as research, not as a patentable claim of ours.
Supporting Research Papers
- Mozi: Governed Autonomy for Drug Discovery LLM Agents
Tool-augmented large language model (LLM) agents promise to unify scientific reasoning with computation, yet their deployment in high-stakes domains like drug discovery is bottlenecked by two critical...
- Neuro-Symbolic Software Verification: Hyper-charging Local Language Models with Symbolic Reasoning at Scale
Loop invariant synthesis remains a central and pivotal bottleneck in formal software verification. Recent LLM-based Neuro-Symbolic tools have achieved impressive solve rates. However, these tools rely...
- Neuro-Symbolic Compliance: Integrating LLMS and SMT Solvers for Automated Financial Legal Analysis
Financial regulations are increasingly complex, hindering automated compliance-especially the maintenance of logical consistency with minimal human oversight. We introduce a Neuro-Symbolic Compliance ...
- Neuro-Symbolic Agents for Regulated Process Automation: Challenges and Research Agenda
LLM-based agents are entering regulated industries where they automate judgment intensive quality management processes. We argue that symbolic structures already embedded in these domains, including r...
Literature Assessment
An LLM's reading of the literature — not computational verification.
VOID BY THE PRE-REGISTERED DENOMINATOR, NOT 'CONSISTENT'. Zero discordant pairs at every threshold, and both controls behaved -- a blocked row's hypothesis planted as a pass on the same script was detected, and the same hypothesis on a different script was correctly not counted, so the pairing code works. But the zero is STRUCTURAL rather than evidence of consistency: of 261 blocks, 209 are script-attributed, while of 28 passes, ZERO are. One side of the comparison is empty, so no discordant pair could exist at any threshold. The pre-registration said a zero would mean 'the monitor is at least self-consistent on this corpus' -- that attribution is wrong and is withdrawn. An absent comparison is not a negative result.
Method: Pre-registered self-consistency audit, 27 Sep 2026, pure local computation over the 2,585-row archive; no model calls. Discordant pairs = same routed script, hypotheses >=0.82 similar, one blocked and one passed; swept at 0.72 / 0.82 / 0.92 with a planted positive control and a cross-script negative control. analysis/policy_monitor/ · Result: inconclusive
Formal Verification
Z3 checks whether the hypothesis is internally consistent, not whether it is empirically true.
This discovery has a Claude-generated validation package with a full experimental design.
Precise Hypothesis
Experimental Protocol
100
GPU hours
30d
Time to result
$1,000
Min cost
$10,000
Full cost