Can Transformers Reason Logically? A Study in SAT Solving
Reviewed by Pithpith:ATKZT7D2open to challenge →
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
This paper has not been read by Pith yet.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Learning How to Cube
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.
-
Large Lemma Miners: Can LLMs do Induction Proofs for Hardware?
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.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.