mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Learning How to Cube

arXiv 2605.16632 ↗First posted 15 May 2026cs.LG cs.AI cs.LOcited by 0

On the map: LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation → Process reward models for reasoning

Abstract (arXiv)

Despite the effectiveness of Cube-and-Conquer (C&C) for solving challenging Boolean Satisfiability (SAT) problems, no prior work has shown that transformer-based models can learn effective cubing heuristics. We introduce a neuro-symbolic post-training framework for this task. We design an MCTS-based data curation pipeline that uses symbolic heuristics to explore splitting decisions over SAT competition formulas, producing preference data grounded in solver statistics and augmented with reasoning traces from a teacher model. Our two-stage post-training, supervised fine-tuning (SFT) followed by direct preference optimization (DPO), enables a 4B-parameter model to achieve a pass@5 score of 53 on 100 SAT competition benchmarks, surpassing frontier LLMs such as Claude-Sonnet-4 (50) and matching the best symbolic heuristic (53). Ablations show that SFT alone improves pass@5 from 46 to 51, with DPO adding 2 additional benchmarks; an entropy/agreement ablation on realized first-cube decisions further shows that SFT, not DPO, accounts for the root-level decision diversity that produces complementary per-run coverage over deterministic symbolic methods. This demonstrates that transformers can be trained to make effective cubing decisions in a domain traditionally dominated by symbolic methods.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Process reward models for reasoning, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation. Builds on 14 of its 42 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 May 2026.

Builds on

14 of 42 references.

References · 14

  1. 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,195
  2. 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 7,916
  3. 2023Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttentioncited by 5,767
  4. 2021Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Datasetcited by 5,203
  5. 2024Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameterscited by 1,928
  6. 2018Learning a SAT Solver from Single-Bit Supervisioncited by 198
  7. 2023SatLM: Satisfiability-Aided Language Models Using Declarative Promptingcited by 100
  8. 2019Guiding High-Performance SAT Solvers with Unsat-Core Predictionscited by 61
  9. 2024Can Transformers Reason Logically? A Study in SAT Solvingcited by 16
  10. 2024GraSS: Combining Graph Neural Networks with Expert Knowledge for SAT Solver Selectioncited by 5
  11. 2016Community Structure in Industrial SAT Instancescited by 4
  12. 2022UNSAT Solver Synthesis via Monte Carlo Forest Searchcited by 3
2 more
  1. 2024AlphaMapleSAT: An MCTS-based Cube-and-Conquer SAT Solver for Hard Combinatorial Problemscited by 2
  2. 2024Global Benchmark Databasecited by 2

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Neural Approaches to SAT Solving: Design Choices and Interpretability
  2. 2025Learning from Algorithm Feedback: One-Shot SAT Solver Guidance with GNNs
  3. 2025Boolean Satisfiability via Imitation Learning
  4. 2023Learning Reliable Logical Rules with SATNet
  5. 2025Teaching Transformers to Solve Combinatorial Problems through Efficient Trial & Error
  6. 2025TurboSAT: Gradient-Guided Boolean Satisfiability Accelerated on GPU-CPU Hybrid System
  7. 2026DiBS: Diffusion-Informed Branch Selection
  8. 2026Dsat: A Native SAT Solver for Discrete Logic