Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Can Transformers Reason Logically? A Study in SAT Solving

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2410.07432 v2 pith:ATKZT7D2 submitted 2024-10-09 cs.LG cs.AIcs.LO

Can Transformers Reason Logically? A Study in SAT Solving

classification cs.LG cs.AIcs.LO
keywords constructiontransformerscorrectnessdecoder-onlydemonstrateempiricallygeneralizationmodel
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

We formally study the logical reasoning capabilities of decoder-only Transformers in the context of the boolean satisfiability (SAT) problem. First, we prove by construction that decoder-only Transformers can decide 3-SAT, in a non-uniform model of computation, using backtracking and deduction via Chain-of-Thought (CoT). %We prove its correctness by showing trace equivalence to the well-known DPLL SAT-solving algorithm. Second, we implement our construction as a PyTorch model with a tool (PARAT) that we designed to empirically demonstrate its correctness and investigate its properties. Third, rather than \textit{programming} a transformer to reason, we evaluate empirically whether it can be \textit{trained} to do so by learning directly from algorithmic traces (``reasoning paths'') from our theoretical construction. The trained models demonstrate strong out-of-distribution generalization on problem sizes seen during training but has limited length generalization, which is consistent with the implications of our theoretical result

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Learning How to Cube

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A neuro-symbolic post-training pipeline lets a 4B transformer learn cubing heuristics that reach pass@5 of 53 on 100 SAT competition instances, matching the strongest symbolic baseline.

  2. Large Lemma Miners: Can LLMs do Induction Proofs for Hardware?

    cs.LO 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0

    A neurosymbolic method using two LLM prompting frameworks generates provably correct inductive arguments for 84% of a set of mid-size open-source RTL hardware designs.

  3. Large Lemma Miners: Can LLMs do Induction Proofs for Hardware?

    cs.LO 2025-11 conditional novelty 5.0

    LLMs, verified by a symbolic model checker, produced correct inductive strengthenings for 82 of 94 curated RTL safety properties.