arxiv: 2604.26522 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-29 · 💻 cs.AI · cs.LG· cs.LO· cs.MA· cs.SC

Recognition: unknown

AGEL-Comp: A Neuro-Symbolic Framework for Compositional Generalization in Interactive Agents

Mahnoor Shahid , Hannes Rothe

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 11:34 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.AI cs.LGcs.LOcs.MAcs.SC

keywords neuro-symbolic AIcompositional generalizationinductive logic programmingcausal program graphdeduction-abduction cycleinteractive agentsworld modelsHorn clauses

0 comments

The pith

A neuro-symbolic agent architecture uses causal graphs and logic synthesis to achieve better compositional generalization than pure language models.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper sets out to address the consistent failures of large language model agents when they must combine skills in novel ways inside interactive environments. It proposes AGEL-Comp, which maintains a dynamic causal program graph to track procedural and causal relations, adds an inductive logic programming engine that turns interaction outcomes into new Horn-clause rules, and runs a hybrid loop in which a language model suggests sub-goals that a neural theorem prover checks for consistency. This produces a repeating deduction-abduction cycle in which the agent plans from existing knowledge while steadily enlarging its explicit symbolic model, followed by a neural adaptation step that keeps the verifier aligned. The authors evaluate the resulting agent inside the Retro Quest simulator on scenarios that require recomposing previously seen elements and report stronger results than language-model-only baselines.

Core claim

AGEL-Comp integrates a dynamic Causal Program Graph as world model, an ILP engine that synthesizes new Horn clauses from experiential feedback, and a hybrid LLM-NTP reasoning core to operationalize a deduction-abduction learning cycle, enabling the agent to deduce plans and abductively expand its symbolic world model while a neural adaptation phase keeps its reasoning engine aligned with new knowledge, and the resulting system outperforms pure LLM-based models on compositional generalization tasks in the Retro Quest simulation.

What carries the argument

The deduction-abduction learning cycle, in which the Causal Program Graph supplies the current causal and procedural knowledge, the ILP engine abduces new Horn clauses from feedback, and the LLM-NTP pair lets the language model propose candidate sub-goals that the theorem prover verifies before execution.

If this is right

The agent can deduce executable plans directly from its current symbolic knowledge while simultaneously abducting new rules to enlarge the model.
The world model remains explicit, interpretable, and structured around causal and procedural relations rather than opaque patterns.
Performance on tasks that recombine previously encountered elements exceeds that of agents relying solely on language-model pattern completion.
A separate neural adaptation phase continuously aligns the verification component with the growing set of symbolic rules.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same cycle could be applied to embodied settings if sensor streams were used to ground and update the causal program graph in real time.
The architecture points toward a general template for agents that maintain both flexible neural proposals and verifiable symbolic commitments.
Further experiments could test whether the synthesized clauses remain stable when the agent encounters longer sequences of novel recombinations.

Load-bearing premise

The ILP engine will reliably synthesize useful Horn clauses from interaction feedback and the neural theorem prover will correctly verify the logical consistency of LLM-proposed sub-goals without introducing errors that break the overall cycle.

What would settle it

A controlled test in which the agent is placed in a fresh compositional scenario, the ILP component produces no effective new clauses, and the verified plans remain logically inconsistent or fail to improve success rate would falsify the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.26522 by Hannes Rothe, Mahnoor Shahid.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: The AGEL-Comp neuro-symbolic architecture view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Aggregated Quest Success and First-Try Success Rate by Agent Config. Discussion The baseline agent’s failure, particularly in First-Try Success, confirms our premise: pure LLM-based agents lack the grounded, systematic understanding needed for robust interaction. They are brittle and rely on trial and error. AGEL-Comp’s success even on the hardest quests, shows it successfully learns and applies the comp… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Aggregated Quest Success and First-Try Success Rate Per LLM Per Agent Config view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Aggregated Iterations and Completion Time Per Agent Config. Per Quest Success (8.3% mean) were abysmal. As seen in view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Performance degradation from easy to hard quests view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Development and Growth of Causal Program Graph by AGEL (GPT-4o) 5.6 Comparison to State-of-the-Art Neuro-Symbolic Systems AGEL-Comp sits at the intersection of three prominent neuro-symbolic lines: (i) differentiable logic and neural reasoning, (ii) symbolic program induction, and (iii) LLM-based agent architectures. First, neuro-symbolic systems typically combine neural perception with (largely) fixed log… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Large Language Model (LLM)-based agents exhibit systemic failures in compositional generalization, limiting their robustness in interactive environments. This work introduces AGEL-Comp, a neuro-symbolic AI agent architecture designed to address this challenge by grounding actions of the agent. AGEL-Comp integrates three core innovations: (1) a dynamic Causal Program Graph (CPG) as a world model, representing procedural and causal knowledge as a directed hypergraph; (2) an Inductive Logic Programming (ILP) engine that synthesizes new Horn clauses from experiential feedback, grounding symbolic knowledge through interaction; and (3) a hybrid reasoning core where an LLM proposes a set of candidate sub-goals that are verified for logical consistency by a Neural Theorem Prover (NTP). Together, these components operationalize a deduction--abduction learning cycle: enabling the agent to deduce plans and abductively expand its symbolic world model, while a neural adaptation phase keeps its reasoning engine aligned with new knowledge. We propose an evaluation protocol within the \texttt{Retro Quest} simulation environment to probe for compositional generalization scenarios to evaluate our AGEL agent. Our findings clearly indicate the better performance of our AGEL model over pure LLM-based models. Our framework presents a principled path toward agents that build an explicit, interpretable, and compositionally structured understanding of their world.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

AGEL-Comp sketches a neuro-symbolic cycle with CPG, ILP, and LLM-NTP to fix compositional failures in agents, but the abstract supplies no data to show the cycle works.

read the letter

The paper introduces AGEL-Comp as an architecture that uses a dynamic causal program graph for the world model, an ILP engine to synthesize Horn clauses from interaction feedback, and a hybrid LLM plus neural theorem prover to handle sub-goal proposals and consistency checks. These pieces run a deduction-abduction loop so the agent can plan from existing knowledge and expand its symbolic base when needed. The stated goal is better compositional generalization than pure LLM agents in the Retro Quest simulator.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper introduces AGEL-Comp, a neuro-symbolic agent architecture for addressing compositional generalization failures in LLM-based agents. It integrates three components: (1) a dynamic Causal Program Graph (CPG) as a world model representing procedural and causal knowledge as a directed hypergraph, (2) an ILP engine that synthesizes new Horn clauses from experiential feedback, and (3) a hybrid LLM-NTP reasoning core in which the LLM proposes candidate sub-goals verified for logical consistency by a Neural Theorem Prover. These enable a deduction-abduction learning cycle, with an evaluation protocol proposed in the Retro Quest environment claiming superior performance over pure LLM-based models.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, the work would provide a concrete neuro-symbolic path toward more robust and interpretable interactive agents by grounding LLM reasoning in an explicit, expandable symbolic world model. The deduction-abduction cycle and hybrid verification mechanism address a recognized limitation of current LLM agents, and the Retro Quest evaluation protocol targets compositional scenarios directly. No machine-checked proofs or parameter-free derivations are present, but the architecture itself is a clear contribution if supported by reproducible results.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract and proposed evaluation protocol: the central claim that AGEL-Comp exhibits 'better performance' than pure LLM-based models in compositional generalization scenarios is stated without any metrics, baselines, error bars, ablation results, or experimental protocol details. This renders the primary empirical assertion unverifiable and load-bearing for the paper's contribution.
[Methods (ILP and hybrid reasoning core)] ILP engine and NTP verification (methods description): the deduction-abduction cycle is defined to depend on the ILP component reliably synthesizing useful Horn clauses from interaction feedback and the NTP correctly verifying LLM-proposed sub-goals without introducing inconsistencies. No analysis, pseudocode, or empirical checks are supplied to demonstrate that these components operate without breaking the cycle, which is the weakest assumption underlying the claimed learning mechanism.

minor comments (3)

[Abstract] The abstract introduces the 'dynamic Causal Program Graph' and 'deduction-abduction learning cycle' without a diagram, formal definition, or pseudocode; adding these would substantially improve clarity.
[Evaluation protocol] Ensure the Retro Quest environment and compositional generalization scenarios are described with sufficient detail for reproducibility, including task distributions and success criteria.
[Throughout] Minor notation: 'AGEL-Comp' and 'AGEL agent' appear interchangeably; standardize terminology throughout.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed feedback on our submission. The comments highlight important areas where the presentation of our empirical claims and methodological details can be strengthened. We address each major comment point-by-point below, indicating the revisions we will make to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and proposed evaluation protocol: the central claim that AGEL-Comp exhibits 'better performance' than pure LLM-based models in compositional generalization scenarios is stated without any metrics, baselines, error bars, ablation results, or experimental protocol details. This renders the primary empirical assertion unverifiable and load-bearing for the paper's contribution.

Authors: We agree that the abstract states the performance improvement at a high level without quantitative details, which limits immediate verifiability of the central claim. The full manuscript contains the complete evaluation protocol, metrics (including success rates and generalization scores), baselines (pure LLM agents), error bars from repeated trials, and ablation results in the Experiments section. To address this directly, we will revise the abstract to incorporate key quantitative findings from the Retro Quest evaluations while preserving conciseness. This change will make the empirical assertion more transparent and verifiable from the outset. revision: yes
Referee: [Methods (ILP and hybrid reasoning core)] ILP engine and NTP verification (methods description): the deduction-abduction cycle is defined to depend on the ILP component reliably synthesizing useful Horn clauses from interaction feedback and the NTP correctly verifying LLM-proposed sub-goals without introducing inconsistencies. No analysis, pseudocode, or empirical checks are supplied to demonstrate that these components operate without breaking the cycle, which is the weakest assumption underlying the claimed learning mechanism.

Authors: The manuscript describes the ILP engine (Section 3.2) and the hybrid LLM-NTP reasoning core (Section 3.3), including their roles in the deduction-abduction cycle. However, we acknowledge that explicit pseudocode, dedicated reliability analysis, and empirical checks for stable operation (e.g., clause synthesis success and verification consistency) are not provided, which weakens the presentation of this core mechanism. We will add pseudocode for the ILP synthesis and NTP verification steps in the revised Methods section. We will also include a new analysis subsection with empirical checks drawn from our experiments, demonstrating that the components maintain cycle integrity without introducing inconsistencies. These additions will directly substantiate the learning mechanism. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The manuscript presents an architectural proposal for AGEL-Comp (dynamic CPG world model + ILP clause synthesis + LLM-NTP deduction-abduction cycle) and reports superior performance on compositional generalization tasks in Retro Quest. No equations, parameter-fitting steps, self-citations, or uniqueness theorems appear in the provided text that would allow any claimed result to reduce to its own inputs by construction. The performance claim is framed as an empirical outcome of the integrated system rather than a derived prediction or renamed known result, rendering the derivation chain self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 3 invented entities

The central claim depends on the effectiveness of three newly introduced components whose internal operation is not derived from prior literature or shown to work in the abstract.

axioms (2)

domain assumption An ILP engine can synthesize new Horn clauses from experiential feedback that correctly ground symbolic knowledge.
Invoked to enable the abduction step of the learning cycle.
domain assumption A Neural Theorem Prover can verify logical consistency of sub-goals proposed by an LLM.
Required for the hybrid reasoning core to function.

invented entities (3)

Dynamic Causal Program Graph (CPG) no independent evidence
purpose: World model representing procedural and causal knowledge as a directed hypergraph.
Newly introduced component with no independent evidence supplied.
ILP engine for Horn clause synthesis no independent evidence
purpose: Generates new symbolic rules from interaction outcomes.
Newly introduced component with no independent evidence supplied.
Hybrid LLM-NTP reasoning core no independent evidence
purpose: LLM proposes candidate sub-goals that NTP verifies.
Newly introduced component with no independent evidence supplied.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5554 in / 1621 out tokens · 55560 ms · 2026-05-07T11:34:19.078128+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

Proceedings of the 58th annual meeting of the associ- ation for computational linguistics pp

Bender, E.M., Koller, A.: Climbing towards nlu: On meaning, form, and under- standing in the age of data. Proceedings of the 58th annual meeting of the associ- ation for computational linguistics pp. 5185–5198 (2020)

2020
[2]

Conference on Robot Learning pp

Brohan, A., Chebotar, Y., Finn, C., Hausman, K., Herzog, A., Ho, D., Ibarz, J., Irpan, A., Jang, E., Julian, R., et al.: Do as i can, not as i say: Grounding language in robotic affordances. Conference on Robot Learning pp. 287–318 (2023)

2023
[3]

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS)33, 1877– 1901 (2020)

Brown, T.B., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J., Dhariwal, P., Nee- lakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., et al.: Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS)33, 1877– 1901 (2020)

1901
[4]

Theory and Practice of Logic Programming14(4-5), 603–618 (2014)

Cabalar, P., Fandinno, J., Fink, M.: Causal graph justifications of logic programs. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming14(4-5), 603–618 (2014)

2014
[5]

MIT press (1965)

Chomsky, N.: Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. MIT press (1965)

1965
[6]

Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research74, 765–850 (2022)

Cropper, A., Dumanˇ ci´ c, S.: Inductive logic programming at 30: a new introduction. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research74, 765–850 (2022)

2022
[7]

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) 36, 70293–70332 (2023)

Dziri, N., Lu, X., Sclar, M., Li, X.L., Jiang, L., Lin, B.Y., Welleck, S., West, P., Bhagavatula, C., Le Bras, R., et al.: Faith and fate: Limits of transformers on compositionality. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) 36, 70293–70332 (2023)

2023
[8]

Cognition28(1-2), 3–71 (1988)

Fodor, J.A., Pylyshyn, Z.W.: Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis. Cognition28(1-2), 3–71 (1988)

1988
[9]

Proceedings of the 2025 Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers) pp

Ismayilzada, M., Circi, D., S¨ alev¨ a, J., Sirin, H., K¨ oksal, A., Dhingra, B., Bosse- lut, A., Ataman, D., Van Der Plas, L.: Evaluating morphological compositional generalization in large language models. Proceedings of the 2025 Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologi...

2025
[10]

IEEE Internet Computing26(1), 43– 50 (2022)

Jaimini, U., Sheth, A.: Causalkg: Causal knowledge graph explainability using interventional and counterfactual reasoning. IEEE Internet Computing26(1), 43– 50 (2022)

2022
[11]

International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) (2020)

Keysers, D., Sch¨ arli, N., Scales, N., Buisman, H., Furrer, D., Kashubin, S., Momma, N., Ravichandran, D., Ruis, L., Pascanu, R., et al.: Measuring compositional gen- eralization: A comprehensive method on realistic data. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) (2020)

2020
[12]

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) (2018)

Manhaeve, R., Dumanˇ ci´ c, S., Kimmig, A., Demeester, T., De Raedt, L.: Deep- problog: Neural probabilistic logic programming. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) (2018)

2018
[13]

ICAPS Workshop on Planning and Reinforce- ment Learning (2024)

Meli, G., et al.: Logic-based reasoning with reinforcement learning for interpretable and actionable policies in pac-man. ICAPS Workshop on Planning and Reinforce- ment Learning (2024)

2024
[14]

CEUR Workshop Proceedings3212(2022)

Minervini, P.: Neural theorem provers. CEUR Workshop Proceedings3212(2022)

2022
[15]

Federated Artificial Intelligence Meeting (FAIM) Workshop on Neural Abstract Machines & Program Induction v2 (2020)

Minervini, P., Bosnjak, M.: Towards neural theorem proving at scale. Federated Artificial Intelligence Meeting (FAIM) Workshop on Neural Abstract Machines & Program Induction v2 (2020)

2020
[16]

The Journal of Logic Programming19, 629–679 (1994)

Muggleton, S., De Raedt, L.: Inductive logic programming: Theory and methods. The Journal of Logic Programming19, 629–679 (1994)

1994
[17]

European Journal for Philosophy of Science14(1), 4 (2024)

Pantsar, M.: Theorem proving in artificial neural networks: new frontiers in math- ematical ai. European Journal for Philosophy of Science14(1), 4 (2024)

2024
[18]

Cambridge university press (2009)

Pearl, J.: Causality. Cambridge university press (2009)

2009
[19]

Nature Machine Intelligence2(7), 369–375 (2020)

Prosperi, M., Guo, Y., Sperrin, M., Koopman, J.S., Min, J.S., He, X., Rich, S., Wang, M., Buchan, I.E., Bian, J.: Causal inference and counterfactual prediction in machine learning for actionable healthcare. Nature Machine Intelligence2(7), 369–375 (2020)

2020
[20]

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) pp

Rockt¨ aschel, T., Riedel, S.: End-to-end differentiable proving. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) pp. 3788–3798 (2017)

2017
[21]

ACL 2025 (2025)

Sakai, Y., Kamigaito, H., Watanabe, T.: Revisiting compositional generalization capability of large language models considering instruction following ability. ACL 2025 (2025)

2025
[22]

In: Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence

Sen, P., de Carvalho, B.W., Riegel, R., Gray, A.: Neuro-symbolic inductive logic programming with logical neural networks. In: Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence. vol. 36, pp. 8212–8219 (2022)

2022
[23]

Artificial Intelligence (2016)

Serafini, L., Garcez, A.d.: Logic tensor networks for semantic image interpretation. Artificial Intelligence (2016)

2016
[24]

NeurIPS Workshop (or arXiv preprint) (2023), check final venue version used in your bibliography

Shinn, N., Labash, B., Gopinath, A., Narasimhan, K., Yao, S.: Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning. NeurIPS Workshop (or arXiv preprint) (2023), check final venue version used in your bibliography

2023
[25]

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37, 11545–11569 (2024)

Tsoukalas, G., Lee, J., Jennings, J., Xin, J., Ding, M., Jennings, M., Thakur, A., Chaudhuri, S.: Putnambench: Evaluating neural theorem-provers on the putnam mathematical competition. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37, 11545–11569 (2024)

2024
[26]

Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems (NeurIPS) pp

Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A.N., Kaiser, L., Polosukhin, I.: Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems (NeurIPS) pp. 5998–6008 (2017)

2017
[27]

Journal of King Saud University Computer and Information Sciences 37(4), 62 (2025) AGEL-Comp: A Neuro-Symbolic Agent for Compositionality 21

Wu, P., Xu, B., Zhang, X.: Causal knowledge graph construction for enterprise innovation events in the digital economy and its application to strategic decision- making. Journal of King Saud University Computer and Information Sciences 37(4), 62 (2025) AGEL-Comp: A Neuro-Symbolic Agent for Compositionality 21

2025
[28]

International Journal of Production Research 61(10), 3227–3245 (2023)

Xu, Z., Dang, Y.: Data-driven causal knowledge graph construction for root cause analysis in quality problem solving. International Journal of Production Research 61(10), 3227–3245 (2023)

2023
[29]

ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models

Yao, S., Zhao, J., Yu, D., Du, N., Shafran, I., Narasimhan, K., Cao, Y.: React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) (2023), arXiv:2210.03629

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2023
[30]

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) (2018)

Yi, K., Wu, J., Gan, C., Torralba, A., Kohli, P., Tenenbaum, J.B.: Neural-symbolic vqa: Disentangling reasoning from vision and language understanding. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) (2018)

2018
[31]

IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems35(8), 10220–10236 (2023)

Zhang, Z., Yilmaz, L., Liu, B.: A critical review of inductive logic programming techniques for explainable ai. IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems35(8), 10220–10236 (2023)

2023