mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Anatomy of a Sound Neural Reasoner: One-Shot Amortization, First-Pass Poisoning, and Search Inertness in Clue-Rich Completion

arXiv 2607.19635 ↗First posted 22 Jul 2026cs.LG cs.AIcited by 0

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

  1. 2018Machine Learning for Combinatorial Optimization: a Methodological Tour d'Horizoncited by 612
  2. 2019Exact Combinatorial Optimization with Graph Convolutional Neural Networkscited by 313
  3. 2018Learning a SAT Solver from Single-Bit Supervisioncited by 198
  4. 2019SATNet: Bridging deep learning and logical reasoning using a differentiable satisfiability solvercited by 173
  5. 2025Hierarchical Reasoning Modelcited by 167
  6. 2024Stream of Search (SoS): Learning to Search in Languagecited by 141
  7. 2020Better Aggregation in Test-Time Augmentationcited by 121
  8. 2021Can You Learn an Algorithm? Generalizing from Easy to Hard Problems with Recurrent Networkscited by 108
  9. 2021Combinatorial Optimization with Physics-Inspired Graph Neural Networkscited by 107
  10. 2021Neural Algorithmic Reasoningcited by 92
  11. 2024Beyond A*: Better Planning with Transformers via Search Dynamics Bootstrappingcited by 89
  12. 2017Recurrent Relational Networkscited by 71
8 more
  1. 2019Guiding High-Performance SAT Solvers with Unsat-Core Predictionscited by 61
  2. 2019Graph Neural Networks for Maximum Constraint Satisfactioncited by 46
  3. 2022End-to-end Algorithm Synthesis with Recurrent Networks: Logical Extrapolation Without Overthinkingcited by 33
  4. 2022Modern graph neural networks do worse than classical greedy algorithms in solving combinatorial optimization problems like maximum independent setcited by 33
  5. 2021NeuroBack: Improving CDCL SAT Solving using Graph Neural Networkscited by 19
  6. 2026Generative Recursive Reasoningcited by 16
  7. 2026Learning to Rank the Initial Branching Order of SAT Solverscited by 1
  8. 2026Lattice Deduction Transformerscited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.