Papers for
automated reasoning developers
Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.
Language models guide solvers to handle complex array problems better
Verifiable LLM-Guided Focal SMT Solving for Quantified Arrays
Abstract: Large language models can often identify useful semantic structure in formal artifacts, but their outputs cannot be trusted as proofs or solver decisions. We study whether LLMs can instead guide formal reasoning systems through a narrow, solver-verifiable interface. We instantiate this idea in quantified array SMT solving, where modern instantiation-based techniques can fail when key ground terms and equalities are hidden by auxiliary variables, axiom guards, and nested array terms. We observe that many instances are largely driven by a small set of focal ground terms or constraints, similar to the backdoor sets in SAT solving. Building on this, we present LinguaArray, a framework where an LLM proposes a small Semantic Focus Set (ground terms/constraints), while a conventional SMT solver remains the sole proof engine and certifies all results. LinguaArray uses these LLM-suggested, solver-validated finite sets to significantly enhance solver capability, solving additional satisfiable and unsatisfiable instances that the backend alone fails to solve. It interacts within a finite time and then falls back to the backend solver to mitigate potential regressions. Evaluation on 1015 SMT-LIB instances across five logics under 1200s timeout (including LLM latency) shows that LinguaArray solves up to 69.1% of instances and increases solved-instance counts by 105%--397% over the corresponding backends.
Kant's logic rules revised to fix completeness flaw in reasoning system
A Counterexample to KL1 Completeness and a Complete Disjunctive Calculus
Abstract: The logic KL$_1$ of Evans, Sergot and Stephenson formalizes Kant's rules as conditional imperatives $B \square\to C$ and permissives $B \diamond\to C$ over acts. Its consequence relation is operational: a rule follows from a set of rules when adjoining it leaves the set of outcomes unchanged for every input. The authors proved their calculus sound and conjectured that it is complete. We show that the conjecture fails: for distinct atoms $b,c,d$ the rules $\top \diamond\to b \lor d$, $b \diamond\to c$, $d \diamond\to c$ and $c \square\to b \lor d$ entail $\top \diamond\to c$, which is not derivable. Non-derivability is proved by an invariant that holds at every derivation depth and for arbitrary intermediate atoms. The obstruction is the side condition of may-trans, which requires each new act to bring with it a single intermediary act. Replacing it by a disjunctive side condition yields may-trans-disj, a strict generalization from which the original rule is derivable. Using a local characterization of entailment, we prove the repaired calculus sound for arbitrary sets of rules and complete for finite ones, and we show that, with finite inputs, completeness cannot be extended to infinite sets. The main results on KL$_1$ are formalized in Agda. For KL$_2$ we observe that the published reduction to KL$_1$ passes through infinite rule sets; re-establishing the decomposition for finite rule sets, we prove that KL$_2$ with the disjunctive rule is sound and complete for finite sets of rules. We close with remarks on KL$_3$ and on the significance of completeness for the relation between the operational and the inferential questions of Kant's logic.
Inference-time scaffolds boost model power beyond training alone
Understanding the Benefits of Scaffolds through Computational Separations
Abstract: Inference-time harnesses, i.e., external procedures that call a model many times and keep state across calls, can substantially improve model capabilities. In this paper, we investigate the benefits of using such harnesses and the extent to which these benefits can be internalized through training. More precisely, we conceptualize a harness $\mathcal{A}$ as an arbitrary wrapper around a base model $M$ and attempt to distill a student model from the harness's traces. Empirically we find that, even with simple scaffolds and small models, the inference-time harness significantly outperforms a distilled student. We then prove that such a gap is due to a fundamental representational limitation: inference-time harnesses can compute a closure of their per-call primitive that is $\NL$-complete even when the primitive is a trivial $\AC^0$ lookup, and that no fixed-depth forward pass can represent under the widely believed conjecture that $\NL\not\subseteq\TC^0$. Our theory suggests that expanding the representational capacity of the student relative to the task at hand, e.g., by enlarging the model, making the task easier, or lengthening its chain-of-thought, is necessary to close the gap, which we verify empirically. Finally, we scale to an agentic harness on competition math, where the same gap reappears. Overall, our results show that a harness confers on the base model a profound gain in representational power, one that training a same-class student on its traces cannot transfer back into the weights.
Policy learns from failures by rewriting mistakes to improve
Failure Is the Mother of Success: Recovering Supervision with Grounding Hindsight
Abstract: When every rollout for a problem fails, GRPO receives neither a successful exemplar nor a nonzero group-relative advantage, so it learns nothing from exactly the problems it most needs to learn. The failed reasoning can nevertheless suggest what to try next. We present Replay-Selected Hindsight Distillation (RSHD), which turns failed attempts into an additional, tested source of supervision during GRPO training. The policy writes a corrective note about each failed attempt without seeing a reference answer or solution, then re-solves the problem with the note in context. A note is admitted only if its replays succeed more often than the original group did, after screening for notes that state the answer, and an admitted replay is distilled into the plain-prompt policy. Because admission is decided by fresh successes rather than by the failed rollout itself, the procedure can recover supervision from groups in which every attempt failed, and it applies equally to failures in mixed groups. Only the policy is trained, the only judge is the outcome verifier, and deployment requires no notes or extra inference. Across model families and sizes and two training domains, RSHD consistently improves over GRPO on in-domain benchmarks, and the gains carry over to out-of-domain evaluation sets.
Stable omega categorical structures show three complexity types in constraint problems
A Non-Dichotomy for CSPs of Stable $ω$-Categorical Structures
Abstract: We construct countable, stable, $ω$-categorical structures with at most two binary relations whose CSPs exhibit three complexity regimes: NP-complete, decidable but not in NP, and undecidable. The templates arise from a controlled Hrushovski construction of stable $ω$-categorical graphs $M_α$ for suitable irrational parameters $α>1$. Some of these graphs have NP-complete CSPs. Expanding the graphs $M_α$ by the non-edge relation turns age membership into a restriction of the CSP. For every time-constructible bound $t$, there is such an expansion whose CSP is decidable but not in DTIME$(t)$. For an explicit parameter $α$, the restriction to complete instances belongs to $\mathrm{coNP}$ and the full CSP belongs to $Σ_2^{\mathrm P}$. Separating the ages of the $M_α$ using graphs with large girth and prescribed density yields $2^{\aleph_0}$ distinct CSPs of these expansions, all but countably many of which are undecidable.
On-policy distillation struggles to fix student errors in hard problems
Correcting or Continuing? What On-Policy Distillation Learns from Student Errors
Abstract: On-policy distillation (OPD) trains a student on its own rollouts under a frozen teacher, mitigating the distribution mismatch of off-policy supervision. While prior work has primarily trained on problems a student can largely solve, we ask whether OPD can improve a student when training is restricted to problems it currently fails. We evaluate five representative OPD mechanisms with Qwen-3 and Phi-4 models under a unified competition-mathematics protocol. We find that OPD does not improve accuracy on this hard subset, with most mechanisms instead degrading performance despite continued decreases in training KL divergence. All eight configurations show a decline, and the two-sided sign test gives p=0.0078. In contrast, the same pipeline improves accuracy by 4.6 percentage points when training is not concentrated on failures, showing that the failure is conditional on the training regime rather than systematic. These findings suggest that OPD is effective when supervision is dominated by correct student prefixes, but can reinforce existing errors when training is concentrated on problems the student currently fails.
Adaptive search finds better mathematical proofs with less cost
LEVER: Adaptive Cost-Aware Proof Search Over AND/OR Graphs
Abstract: Mathematicians value proofs for more than correctness: among correct proofs, simplicity, purity and the computational cost of finding them vary widely. Yet LLM-powered theorem provers largely search for any correct proof, and improve its quality only after it is found. We propose LEVER, a proof search algorithm that makes the objective over correct proofs programmable and optimizes it during search. LEVER scores partial proofs over an AND/OR proof graph, combining realized objective values with predictions for open subgoals, so the objective guides search before a proof is complete. The same mechanism optimizes computational cost, proof length, topical impurity, and even their weighted combinations, while the Lean kernel enforces correctness. On PutnamBench in Lean 4, under matched budgets, LEVER costs 34% less than a strong single-conversation agent while raising the solve rate from 80% to 96%. On reducing topical impurity, i.e., how far a proof strays from its theorem's subject, it improves over post-hoc refactoring (42% reduction against 33%) at two-thirds of the cost and more reliably; on proof length, the metric refactoring is built for, it approaches refactoring. Varying the objective's weights traces a quality-cost trade-off curve, so the user can choose how much a better proof is worth. Overall, LEVER is a performant, cost-efficient and tunable proof search algorithm for navigating the space of correct proofs.
Two-variable logic satisfiability solved for many successor relations
Two-Variable Logic with Arbitrarily Many Successor Relations
Abstract: We study two-variable first-order logic with a finite, input-dependent number of distinguished successor relations and arbitrary additional unary and binary predicates. Each distinguished relation must be the exact immediate-successor relation of some linear order on the common domain; the orders themselves are not available in the language and may have arbitrary order types. We prove that satisfiability belongs to 2NEXPTIME, uniformly in the number of successors. The proof gives finite certificates for possibly infinite models. A closure operation separates local neighbourhood descriptions, called star types, into those of bounded multiplicity and those that can be realized infinitely often. The bounded part is represented explicitly. Outside it, integer height vectors allow overlapping successor requirements to be matched without creating cycles or unintended identifications. Ordering the resulting path components densely then recovers exact successor relations. Consistent assignments of the additional binary predicates handle witnesses involving the bounded part. The same certificates decide infinite satisfiability in 2NEXPTIME and give a doubly exponential threshold above which a finite model guarantees an infinite model. A doubly exponentially large finite core can be forced with only two successors and unary predicates. For finite models, we prove that satisfiability subject to a bound on the total number of reference adjacencies lost by the other orders is NEXPTIME-complete, even when the budget is encoded in binary and the number of successors is part of the input.
Hierarchical continuous diffusion improves language model generation quality
Denoising Hierarchical Representations: Joint Continuous Diffusion for Language Modeling
Abstract: Diffusion Language Models (DLMs) hold the promise of order-agnostic, parallel text generation. Recently, continuous diffusion and flow matching models have seen substantial gains, driven by carefully crafted token representations and diffusion/flow spaces. In this work, we introduce Hierarchical Continuous Diffusion Language Models (H-CDLMs), a simple framework that further improves continuous DLMs with minimal compute and parameter overhead. Drawing on the discrete DLM and continuous image diffusion literature on joint diffusion, we diffuse multiple modalities in parallel. These modalities represent tokens at different semantic granularities: in our instantiation, the tokens themselves and coarser clusters obtained by clustering pretrained token embeddings. We propose a general setup that allows per-modality samplers and schedules to enhance the interplay between modalities. Applied to CoBit, this yields H-CoBit, which delivers large empirical gains across benchmarks. At dataset entropy, H-CoBit improves MAUVE and reaches a generative perplexity (GenPPL) of 49.4 on LM1B and 50.4 on OWT, improving on the baseline by 24.2 and 20.7 points and surpassing even discrete DLMs of comparable size. On GSM8K, it reaches 27.4% accuracy, outperforming prior continuous diffusion and flow-based models. We further apply H-CDLM to the flow matching model FLM, obtaining consistent gains with H-FLM and demonstrating that the framework generalizes across continuous generative paradigms. Our code will be made publicly available at https://github.com/matol-16/HCDLM.git .
Many valued essence and accident logic extended with Belnapian truth
Essence and accident modalities meet Belnapian truth values
Abstract: This paper investigates many-valued generalisations of the classical essence and accident modalities. In two-valued logic, a proposition is essentially true (resp. false) if, whenever it is true (resp. false), it is necessarily true (resp. false); it is accidentally true (resp. false) if it is true (resp. false) but not necessarily so. Many-valued logics provide a natural setting for introducing further modalities of this kind. We focus on Belnap-Dunn's First-Degree Entailment (FDE), a four-valued system that generalises the classical truth values. More precisely, we consider an extension of FDE with Boolean negation and implication. In addition to modalities of essential and accidental truth and falsity, we define modalities of essential and accidental inconsistency and indeterminacy. We present a four-valued S5-based Kripke semantics and cut-free hypersequent calculi for the resulting logics. We then prove semantic and syntactic embedding theorems for these logics into a four-valued version of S5 with necessity and possibility modalities. These embeddings clarify the intended interpretation of the Belnapian essence and accident modalities and yield soundness, completeness, and cut-admissibility results.
New algorithm speeds up probabilistic reasoning in neurosymbolic learning
DPNL: A DPLL-based Algorithm for Probabilistic Neurosymbolic Learning
Abstract: Probabilistic Neurosymbolic Learning (PNL) combines neural predictions with symbolic reasoning, enabling end-to-end learning from final-output supervision without labels for intermediate concepts. A central challenge is probabilistic inference: state-of-the-art approaches often rely on materializing the logical provenance of a query, which can itself become a major computational bottleneck. We introduce Dynamic Probabilistic Neurosymbolic Learning (DPNL), an oracle-guided framework that avoids requiring complete provenance materialization before inference. DPNL lazily explores the space of intermediate assignments, while oracles resolve entire regions that can already be certified to produce or exclude the target output. We establish conditions ensuring soundness and termination. ApproxDPNL extends the same search with early termination while maintaining certified bounds on the exact output probability, providing controlled approximation guarantees. The oracle interface decouples inference from the representation of the symbolic component, enabling problem-specific reasoning within the same framework. Experiments on several neurosymbolic tasks show that DPNL and ApproxDPNL substantially extend the range of problem instances tractable by probabilistic neurosymbolic inference.
Generalizations of shininess improve theory combination methods
Two generalizations of shininess
Abstract: Shininess is one of the main theory combination methods in Satisfiability Modulo Theories. We present two infinite families of generalizations of it: one involving a property between gentleness and shininess, which helps us see gentleness itself as a variation of shininess; and another having no further computability requirements on the weaker theory, in addition dropping the need for smoothness. We prove these methods sharp, and compare them with existing methods.
Reinforcement learning improves long reasoning with better probability rewards
Rethinking Probability-Based Reinforcement Learning From Posterior Concentration
Abstract: Verifier-free reinforcement learning with probability-based rewards offers a promising way to train LLMs on general reasoning tasks where external verifiers are unavailable. Yet the reliability of these rewards, especially in long-horizon reasoning, remains underexplored. This work identifies a length-dependent failure mode of probability rewards, which we call the Posterior Concentration Phenomenon (PCP). We show that the probability of a reference answer conditioned on a reasoning trace often collapses to a low-variance interval as the trace becomes lengthy. This phenomenon results in nearly indistinguishable rewards, which, under GRPO-based settings, makes probability-based policy optimization unstable and inefficient. Motivated by this, we propose Reinforcement Learning with Concentration-aware Posterior Rewards (RLCPR), a verifier-free RL framework to explicitly account for PCP for better optimization stability and token efficiency. It has two components: uncertainty-aware data sampling, which reduces concentration-prone rollouts before generation, and concentration-aware regularization, which penalizes unnecessarily long traces when posterior rewards collapse. Extensive experiments show that, alongside higher token efficiency, RLCPR outperforms the state-of-the-art verifier-free RL baseline by up to 4.0% on six of seven benchmarks, including general-domain and mathematical reasoning challenges.
Outcome-based reinforcement learning trains process supervision models efficiently
Inducing Process Supervision from Outcome-Only Reinforcement Learning
Abstract: Process reward models (PRMs) have become a key component for LLMs, as their step-level feedback supports both post-training and test-time reasoning. However, training strong PRMs remains costly: human step annotation is difficult to scale, while Monte Carlo estimation is computationally expensive and can drift from the intrinsic correctness of steps. To get effective PRMs at low cost, we introduce TIPS (Thinking-Induced Process Supervision), an outcome-only reinforcement learning (RL) framework for training generative PRMs. In TIPS, the model generates a chain-of-thought (CoT) followed by step-level labels and an outcome label. The reward depends solely on whether the predicted outcome matches the ground truth, and the resulting group-relative advantage is used to optimize the entire generated response. Intuitively, when checking intermediate steps helps determine the outcome, more accurate checks can lead to better outcome judgments and higher rewards. Outcome-only RL can therefore reinforce step-level verification without explicit process supervision. We validate the effectiveness of TIPS across math and agent benchmarks and four backbone families. Notably, TIPS-Qwen3-4B-Thinking-2507 reaches 85.2 F1 on ProcessBench with only 3.2K outcome-labeled trajectories, surpassing all evaluated trained PRMs and strong prompt-only judges such as GPT-5.4-Instruct and Claude-4.7-Opus, while still trailing o1-mini. Code and data are available at https://github.com/RUCBM/TIPS.
Group relative rl improves learning from saturated data with negative rollouts
Save Your Saturated Data: Learning Beyond Reward Saturation in Group-Based RL
Abstract: Group-relative reinforcement learning (RL) relies on reward variation among sampled responses to estimate informative relative advantages. As language models become increasingly capable, existing training data can become reward-saturated: all sampled responses to the same problem might receive equally high rewards, where the group-relative learning signals vanish and leave previously useful data obsolete. In this work, we investigate whether useful learning signals can be recovered from such saturated data. We study interventions at four levels of group-policy RL pipelines---data, rollout, reward, and advantage---and conduct extensive RL training on saturated reasoning data only. While standard GRPO on saturated data would almost always yield near-0 advantages and near-noise signals, diverse interventions successfully recycle and repurpose such data: among the proposed strategies, interventions at rollout generation are consistently most effective: nudging the policy to generate ``high-quality'', incorrect solutions introduces rollouts with poor rewards into saturated groups as negative samples, which turns out to improve GRPO by 6.4% to 9.0% across Qwen3-1.7B and 4B. Other interventions such as increasing rollout temperature or adding auxiliary rewards can also restore non-zero advantages, but yield less consistent gains. Further analyses show that effective negative rollouts require informative negative trajectories, that the method remains effective alongside unsaturated data, and that it supports iterative recycling of newly saturated examples. While increasingly stronger LLMs would render more data as saturated, our results demonstrate that don't waste your saturated data: with the right strategies they can be recycled into useful RL training signals in an increasingly data-scarce world.
Policy aligned critic training improves language model reasoning accuracy
PACT: From Credit Assignment to Critic Alignment
Abstract: Reinforcement learning has become a central component of large language model (LLM) post-training, yet token-level credit lacks a generally accepted mathematical definition, leaving its relationship to commonly used training signals unclear. We formulate three regularity conditions, namely Completeness, Prefix Consistency, and Neutrality, and prove that they uniquely determine token-level credit. This characterization provides a unified basis for explaining phenomena across existing algorithms and guides the development of an improved actor-critic training procedure. Through this lens, an ideal teacher in On-Policy Distillation (OPD) acts as an implicit critic, yielding an expected policy gradient proportional to that induced by token-level credit. Response-level REINFORCE Leave-One-Out (RLOO) signals match the expected policy-gradient contribution of token-level credit despite their coarser granularity. We further establish approximate credit sparsity under bounded outcome rewards and show how intermediate critic errors in Generalized Advantage Estimation (GAE) can become comparable to the underlying credit. These motivate Policy Aligned Critic Training (PACT), which adopts an Actor-then-Critic update order to apply importance sampling correction to critic training and better align the critic with the updated policy. In agentic mathematical reasoning, PACT achieves 72.87% average accuracy across four benchmarks, outperforming GRPO and PPO by 8.80 and 13.16 percentage points, respectively. On SWE-bench Verified, PACT achieves a pass rate of 67.4%, outperforming PPO, GRPO, and SAO by 2.4, 2.0, and 3.8 percentage points, respectively.
Formalizing infinite descent for complex inductive definitions in logic
An Infinitary and a Cyclic Sequent Calculus for Non-Monotone Inductive Definitions
Abstract: Inductive definitions are an important form of knowledge in mathematics and computer science. Two common techniques to prove theorems about inductive definitions are the principle of mathematical induction and the principle of infinite descent. To formalize these principles, Brotherston and Simpson introduced the sequent calculus proof systems LKID, for mathematical induction, and LKIDω and CLKIDω , for infinite descent. LKIDω is an infinitary system, in which proofs are infinite trees, and CLKIDω a cyclic system, in which proofs are finite graphs. However, these calculi restrict to monotone definitions, while inductive definitions are generally non-monotone. The logic FO(ID) extends classical first-order logic with non-monotone inductive definitions. In earlier work, we provided a formalization of the principle of mathematical induction for non-monotone definitions by extending LKID to a sequent calculus SCFO(ID) for FO(ID). In this paper, we provide a formalization of the principle of infinite descent for non-monotone definitions by extending LKIDω and CLKIDω to sequent calculi SCFO(ID)-inf resp. SCFO(ID)-cyc for FO(ID). Furthermore, we extend several proof-theoretic results for LKIDω and CLKIDω to SCFO(ID)-inf and SCFO(ID)-cyc regarding soundness, completeness, cut-elimination and the relation with SCFO(ID).
Intuitionistic modal logics IS4 and IK4 shown decidable with new proof method
A decision procedure for intuitionistic modal logic IS4 (and IK4)
Abstract: In this paper, we show that the two intuitionistic modal logics IS4 and IK4 are decidable. We provide a constructive decision procedure, that, given a formula, produces either a proof showing the formula to be valid or a finite countermodel falsifying the formula, thus also proving the finite model property for both logics. The main ingredient of our strategy is the introduction of (possibly unsound) loop rules, which encode repeating behaviour in proof search. This paper fixes a previous mistake in our LICS'23 contribution.
Task embeddings improve rule discovery in abstraction reasoning tests
Implicit Rule Induction with Test-Time Task Embeddings in ARC-like Tasks
Abstract: The Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus and related benchmarks evaluate whether AI models can solve novel reasoning tasks, but often leave unclear whether success reflects inference of the intended underlying rule or reliance on shortcuts. We address this gap by studying test-time task embeddings in Vision ARC (VARC), a model in which a pre-trained backbone is complemented by a trainable embedding representing the transformation rule. In the original VARC, test-time training (TTT) is jointly applied to the backbone and task embedding. Here we introduce a novel two-step TTT protocol: first finetune only the task embedding (Embed-TTT), then freeze it and finetune the backbone. Across ARC-AGI-1, ConceptARC, and two controlled datasets with known rules, Embed-TTT consistently yields improved task embeddings, ones that align better with underlying task rules, improve embedding-based retrieval, and enable accurate linear probing of known rules. Qualitatively, Embed-TTT identifies more semantically meaningful relations between test and train tasks on ARC-AGI-1. We also show that optimizing only task embeddings (less than 0.01% of model parameters) already solves a non-trivial fraction of ARC-AGI-1, ConceptARC, and Mini-ARC tasks, while the full two-step pipeline improves final performance. Finally, we show that Embed-TTT recovers the underlying geometric structure of parametric rules and learns compositional capabilities that enable rule-wise interpolation, but not extrapolation. These findings support a clearer separation between rule induction and rule execution in ARC-like evaluations, motivating benchmarks that better distinguish in-distribution from out-of-distribution rules.
Valiant algorithm reaches near-optimal sample use for learning CNF formulas
Learning CNF Formulas from Uniform Random Solutions: Near-Tight Sample Complexity for Valiant's Algorithm
Abstract: We revisit Valiant's algorithm (Commun. ACM'84) for learning $n$-variable CNF formulas with clause size $k$ and variable degree $d$ from i.i.d. uniform random solutions in the local lemma regime. For fixed $t\geq1$, under $k\gtrsim(1+1/t)\log d$, Valiant's algorithm achieves total variation error $\varepsilon$ with $\widetilde{O}(n^{\lceil t \rceil}/\varepsilon)$ sample complexity. For $t>1$, we prove a matching lower bound for Valiant's algorithm. At $t=1$ (covering $0<t<1$), we show Valiant's algorithm has optimal sample complexity up to logarithmic factors by an information-theoretic lower bound $\widetildeΩ(n/\varepsilon)$.
Multi-agent systems learn when to collaborate for better code results
Learning How Much to Collaborate: Difficulty-Aware Topology Selection for Multi-Agent Code Generation
Abstract: Multi-agent systems for code generation are deployed with a single communication topology, chosen once for every problem. This is the wrong granularity. Evaluating five topologies on 614 problems from APPS, HumanEval+ and LiveCodeBench, we find that the advantage of hierarchical collaboration over a single agent grows from 2.4 points of pass@1 on the easiest third of problems to 21.1 points on the hardest third, while its token cost stays about ten times higher. We propose the Difficulty-Aware Topology Selector (DATS), which predicts each topology's probability of solving a problem and selects the one maximising predicted success minus cost. Its predictor is a graph network that treats the five topologies as nodes of a connectivity order rather than independent labels, worth 1.7 points over a flat multi-label head. Because the cost penalty is a single scalar recalibrable without retraining, routers compare at equal spend: under this budget-matched protocol six cost-aware methods span 21.6 percentage points, and two baselines leading DATS fall behind once calibrated to it. Fixed at 40% of the always-hierarchical cost, DATS reaches 77.7% pass@1 against 73.6% (always-hierarchical) and 74.3% (strongest learned competitor), all eleven pairwise McNemar comparisons surviving Holm-Bonferroni correction. The 4.1-point gain holds across four backbones spanning fourteen points of capability, and replacing the 39 interpretable features with a graph network or a pretrained encoder shifts accuracy by at most 1.3 points, never significantly. A cross-domain study on 400 mathematical reasoning problems reproduces the effect, the gap widening from 2.5 to 20.9 points.
Warrant theory explains how propositions gain logical acceptance
Warrant Theory
Abstract: In this paper, we develop warrant theory as a philosophical discipline concerned with the inferential legitimacy of propositions within logical analysis. Warrant theory reconceptualises logic as a normative framework governing the conditions under which propositions may be introduced, accepted, rejected, and inferentially employed. Warrant is understood as inferential entitlement and is distinguished from truth, belief, and other psychological attitudes, while its relation to inferential use and meaning is examined. Warrant-theoretic analysis is then developed as a systematic method for investigating how propositions acquire inferential standing, how that standing develops, and how inferential positions interact through relations of dependence, compatibility, incompatibility, and exclusion. Acceptance and rejection provide the bilateral vocabulary for representing positive and negative inferential positions and the consequences and commitments associated with them. Finally, these elements are brought together in a warrant-theoretic definition of logic as the formal and normative study of the conditions under which propositions may be legitimately accepted or rejected and of the inferential transitions that such legitimacy warrants. On this account, logical consequence and logical failure are understood through the presence, preservation, or absence of inferential entitlement, thus locating the philosophical subject matter of logic in the systematic governance of inferential legitimacy.
Improving SMT solvers by learning from non-ground conflicts
Extending SMT Solving with Non-Ground Clause Learning
Abstract: Quantifier instantiation is currently the main approach to non-ground SMT solving: solvers generate ground instances and solve the resulting ground SMT problems with CDCL(T)-style reasoning. When a conflict is found, conflict analysis learns only a ground clause, even though the conflict comes from instances of non-ground clauses. Yet non-ground reasoning can give exponentially shorter proofs than purely ground reasoning. We propose a calculus that consists of ground instantiations, CDCL(T)-style rules, and non-ground conflict analysis. The solver reasons on ground instances, but the resolution steps of conflict analysis are performed on their original non-ground clauses. This produces learned clauses that are typically more general than the ground conflict. With a suitable strategy, the learned clauses are even non-redundant. We also show how chronological backtracking can be included in SMT solving. Our calculus gives a common setting for CDCL(T)-style SMT solving, a range of instantiation-based procedures, and non-ground clause learning, and we prove that it simulates CDCL, SCL(FOL), SCL(T), and even Resolution.