Learning How to Cube
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
- 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,195
- 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 7,916
- 2023Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttentioncited by 5,767
- 2021Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Datasetcited by 5,203
- 2024Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameterscited by 1,928
- 2018Learning a SAT Solver from Single-Bit Supervisioncited by 198
- 2023SatLM: Satisfiability-Aided Language Models Using Declarative Promptingcited by 100
- 2019Guiding High-Performance SAT Solvers with Unsat-Core Predictionscited by 61
- 2024Can Transformers Reason Logically? A Study in SAT Solvingcited by 16
- 2024GraSS: Combining Graph Neural Networks with Expert Knowledge for SAT Solver Selectioncited by 5
- 2016Community Structure in Industrial SAT Instancescited by 4
- 2022UNSAT Solver Synthesis via Monte Carlo Forest Searchcited by 3
2 more
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Neural Approaches to SAT Solving: Design Choices and Interpretability
- 2025Learning from Algorithm Feedback: One-Shot SAT Solver Guidance with GNNs
- 2025Boolean Satisfiability via Imitation Learning
- 2023Learning Reliable Logical Rules with SATNet
- 2025Teaching Transformers to Solve Combinatorial Problems through Efficient Trial & Error
- 2025TurboSAT: Gradient-Guided Boolean Satisfiability Accelerated on GPU-CPU Hybrid System
- 2026DiBS: Diffusion-Informed Branch Selection
- 2026Dsat: A Native SAT Solver for Discrete Logic