NRR-Core: Non-Resolution Reasoning as a Computational Framework for Contextual Identity and Ambiguity Preservation

Kei Saito

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2512.13478

NRR-Core: Non-Resolution Reasoning as a Computational Framework for Contextual Identity and Ambiguity Preservation

Kei Saito

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Language-processing systems that optimize for a single resolved output risk losing ambiguity. With incomplete context, competing interpretations may be compressed prematurely. We specify Non-Resolution Reasoning (NRR) as an explicit retention-commitment interface for preserving context-indexed alternatives until evidence supports commitment. NRR organizes context-indexed alternatives, independently active weights, declared retention and commitment operations, and non-destructive output projection around three principles: Context-indexed Non-Identity, Approximate Identity, and Non-Resolution. It specifies a retained state and candidate operator vocabulary, and proposes Multi-Vector Embeddings, Non-Collapsing Attention, and Contextual Identity Tracking as implementable architectural realizations. In a reproducible synthetic two-turn task, one gated Multi-Vector-Embedding instantiation maintains high output entropy before disambiguating context arrives ($H = 0.91$ bits, near the $1.0$-bit maximum), while a controlled single-embedding baseline has low entropy ($H = 0.15$ bits); both tested systems resolve correctly after context arrives. Thus, high pre-context output uncertainty and accurate later resolution can coexist in the tested gated configuration. This result does not validate the full NRR architecture or matched-parameter superiority; the specification, proposed components, and demonstrated behavior remain distinct contribution layers. NRR targets premature commitment, not commitment itself: alternatives can remain available while evidence is incomplete, and commitment occurs at explicit output or action gates. The question is not whether AI should resolve ambiguity, but when, how, and under whose control. Implementation: https://github.com/kei-saito-research/nrr-core. Series hub: https://github.com/kei-saito-research/nrr-series-hub.

Explore related subjects

cs.CL cs.AI cs.LG

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Kei Saito. 2026-07-15. NRR-Core: Non-Resolution Reasoning as a Computational Framework for Contextual Identity and Ambiguity Preservation. https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.13478

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Universal Topological Regularity of Syntactic Structures

Despite their widespread use, the principles governing the organisation of syntactic dependency trees remain poorly understood. I analyse dependency trees from 124 typologically, genetically, and geographically diverse languages. Their topology departs systematically from randomness. Relative to uniformly sampled random trees, dependency trees exhibit greater structural robustness and lower branching heterogeneity. I propose that these universal regularities emerge naturally from incremental grammatical encoding. I model this process using sublinear preferential attachment. The model accurately reproduces the observed topology. More generally, the results demonstrate how a universal statistical property of syntax can emerge from a simple, cognitively motivated generative process. They further illustrate a broader principle of efficiency by construction: communicatively efficient syntactic structures can emerge without direct optimisation for communication.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

An Incomplete Loop: Deductive, Inductive, and Abductive Reasoning in Language Models

Modern language models (LMs) can learn to perform new tasks in different ways: in instruction following, the target task is described explicitly in natural language; in few-shot prompting, the task is specified implicitly with a small number of examples; in instruction inference, LMs are presented with in-context examples and are then prompted to generate a natural language task description before making predictions. Each of these procedures may be thought of as invoking a different form of reasoning: instruction following involves deductive reasoning, few-shot prompting involves inductive reasoning, and instruction inference involves abductive reasoning. How do these different capabilities relate? Across four LMs (from the gpt and llama families) and two learning problems (involving arithmetic functions and machine translation) we find a strong dissociation between the different types of reasoning: LMs can sometimes learn effectively from few-shot prompts even when they are unable to explain their own prediction rules; conversely, they sometimes infer useful task descriptions while completely failing to learn from human-generated descriptions of the same task. Our results highlight the non-systematic nature of reasoning even in some of today's largest LMs, and underscore the fact that very different learning mechanisms may be invoked by seemingly similar prompting procedures.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Thinking beyond the anthropomorphic paradigm benefits LLM research

Anthropomorphism, or the attribution of human traits to technology, is an automatic and unconscious response that occurs even in those with advanced technical expertise. In this position paper, we analyze hundreds of thousands of research articles to present empirical evidence of the prevalence and growth of anthropomorphic terminology in research on large language models (LLMs). We argue for challenging the deeper assumptions reflected in this terminology -- which, though often useful, may inadvertently constrain LLM development -- and broadening beyond them to open new pathways for understanding and improving LLMs. Specifically, we identify and examine five anthropomorphic assumptions that shape research across the LLM development lifecycle. For each assumption (e.g., that LLMs must use natural language for reasoning, or that they should be evaluated on benchmarks originally meant for humans), we demonstrate empirical, non-anthropomorphic alternatives that remain under-explored yet offer promising directions for LLM research and development.

cs.CL↗