Anatomy of a Sound Neural Reasoner: One-Shot Amortization, First-Pass Poisoning, and Search Inertness in Clue-Rich Completion
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Neural solvers are built to deduce, branch, and revise intermediate states. The Lattice Deduction Transformer (LDT) appears to do exactly that. In clue-rich Sudoku, it does not: one forward pass commits essentially the entire grid (every blank cell on standard 6x6, 94-96% on augmented 9x9), turning the iterative solver into a one-shot predictor wrapped in an exact verifier. All hard-slice failures are decided before search begins, when the first pass confidently deletes a value required by the true solution. We call this first-pass poisoning. Adding learned branching, MRV, backtracking, value exclusion, and shared nogoods (CoLT) does not change which Sudoku instances are solved; it cuts repeated invalid derivations 1,497-fold. At the frozen training budget, constraint-graph attention alone matches full-CoLT accuracy, while positional tables recover only under substantially longer training, indicating an optimization and sample-efficiency advantage rather than an absolute capacity difference. The diagnosis predicts two effective interventions. Digit-permutation augmentation raises 9x9 accuracy from below 1% to 96.5 +/- 0.3 across three training seeds on a symmetry-disjoint split. Test-time union over symmetry-transformed passes raises all three hard-slice checkpoints from 72.8-78.9% to 100% without retraining. On from-scratch graph coloring, one-shot behavior disappears and search changes accuracy. In clue-rich completion, LDT-like systems are one-shot amortized predictors rather than learned search procedures: accuracy is determined by calibration and symmetry, while search primarily removes computational waste.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 34 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 22 Jul 2026.
Builds on
20 of 34 references.
References · 20
- 2018Machine Learning for Combinatorial Optimization: a Methodological Tour d'Horizoncited by 612
- 2019Exact Combinatorial Optimization with Graph Convolutional Neural Networkscited by 313
- 2018Learning a SAT Solver from Single-Bit Supervisioncited by 198
- 2019SATNet: Bridging deep learning and logical reasoning using a differentiable satisfiability solvercited by 173
- 2025Hierarchical Reasoning Modelcited by 167
- 2024Stream of Search (SoS): Learning to Search in Languagecited by 141
- 2020Better Aggregation in Test-Time Augmentationcited by 121
- 2021Can You Learn an Algorithm? Generalizing from Easy to Hard Problems with Recurrent Networkscited by 108
- 2021Combinatorial Optimization with Physics-Inspired Graph Neural Networkscited by 107
- 2021Neural Algorithmic Reasoningcited by 92
- 2024Beyond A*: Better Planning with Transformers via Search Dynamics Bootstrappingcited by 89
- 2017Recurrent Relational Networkscited by 71
8 more
- 2019Guiding High-Performance SAT Solvers with Unsat-Core Predictionscited by 61
- 2019Graph Neural Networks for Maximum Constraint Satisfactioncited by 46
- 2022End-to-end Algorithm Synthesis with Recurrent Networks: Logical Extrapolation Without Overthinkingcited by 33
- 2022Modern graph neural networks do worse than classical greedy algorithms in solving combinatorial optimization problems like maximum independent setcited by 33
- 2021NeuroBack: Improving CDCL SAT Solving using Graph Neural Networkscited by 19
- 2026Generative Recursive Reasoningcited by 16
- 2026Learning to Rank the Initial Branching Order of SAT Solverscited by 1
- 2026Lattice Deduction Transformerscited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.