A Divide-Align-Conquer Strategy for Program Synthesis
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
A major bottleneck in search-based program synthesis is the exponentially growing search space which makes learning large programs intractable. Humans mitigate this problem by leveraging the compositional nature of the real world: In structured domains, a logical specification can often be decomposed into smaller, complementary solution programs. We show that compositional segmentation can be applied in the programming by examples setting to divide the search for large programs across multiple smaller program synthesis problems. For each example, we search for a decomposition into smaller units which maximizes the reconstruction accuracy in the output under a latent task program. A structural alignment of the constituent parts in the input and output leads to pairwise correspondences used to guide the program synthesis search. In order to align the input/output structures, we make use of the Structure-Mapping Theory (SMT), a formal model of human analogical reasoning which originated in the cognitive sciences. We show that decomposition-driven program synthesis with structural alignment outperforms Inductive Logic Programming (ILP) baselines on string transformation tasks even with minimal knowledge priors. Unlike existing methods, the predictive accuracy of our agent monotonically increases for additional examples and achieves an average time complexity of O(m) in the number m of partial programs for highly structured domains such as strings. We extend this method to the complex setting of visual reasoning in the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus (ARC) for which ILP methods were previously infeasible.
Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 3 of its 25 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 Jan 2023.
Builds on
3 of 25 references.
References · 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 5; 2025: 1; 2026: 1.
7 papers.
- 2024Combining Induction and Transduction for Abstract Reasoningcited by 53
- 2024ARCLE: The Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus Learning Environment for Reinforcement Learningcited by 7
- 2024Relational decomposition for program synthesiscited by 6
- 2024Program Synthesis using Inductive Logic Programming for the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpuscited by 4
- 2024Abductive Symbolic Solver on Abstraction and Reasoning Corpuscited by 2
- 2025Beyond Either-Or Reasoning: Transduction and Induction as Cooperative Problem-Solving Paradigmscited by 1
- 2026Solver-Aware Decompositions for Programming-by-Example: When Dividing Requires Knowing how to Conquercited by 0
- 2026Solver-Aware Decompositions for Programming-by-Example: When Dividing Requires Knowing how to Conquer4 Aug 2026
- 2025Beyond Either-Or Reasoning: Transduction and Induction as Cooperative Problem-Solving Paradigms20 May 2025
- 2024Abductive Symbolic Solver on Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus27 Nov 2024
- 2024Combining Induction and Transduction for Abstract Reasoning4 Nov 2024
- 2024Relational decomposition for program synthesis22 Aug 2024
- 2024ARCLE: The Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus Learning Environment for Reinforcement Learning30 Jul 2024
- 2024Program Synthesis using Inductive Logic Programming for the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus10 May 2024
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Agentic Proposing: Enhancing Large Language Model Reasoning via Compositional Skill Synthesis
- 2025CodeARC: Benchmarking Reasoning Capabilities of LLM Agents for Inductive Program Synthesis
- 2022Parsel: Algorithmic Reasoning with Language Models by Composing Decompositions
- 2026KAPSO: A Knowledge-grounded framework for Autonomous Program Synthesis and Optimization
- 2024Compositional Hardness of Code in Large Language Models -- A Probabilistic Perspective
- 2026Learning to Reason with Curriculum II: Compositional Generalization
- 2025Characterizing Pattern Matching and Its Limits on Compositional Task Structures
- 2026CoCoDA: Co-evolving Compositional DAG for Tool-Augmented Agents