Beyond Surface Forms: Symbolic Edits as a Test for Logical Reasoning with LLMs

Logical reasoning with large language models (LLMs) is a critical capability, as it reflects a system's ability to correctly deduce hypotheses from a given context using faithful deductive processes. However, LLM reasoning has often been shown to be sensitive to small surface-level variations in problem formulation, raising questions about whether models truly follow the underlying logical structure. Studying this behavior is challenging because the symbolic components of logical problems, such as operators and predicates, are difficult to systematically manipulate in natural language. We introduce a tool-driven framework for generating controlled, label-preserving edits to logical reasoning problems. Our method operates on symbolic representations of first-order logic and constraint satisfaction problem tasks, enabling targeted modifications to logical operators and other structural components before translating them back into natural language. Using this framework, we evaluate various LLMs under cumulative and individual operator edits and analyze their behavior in response to these changes. Our quantitative and qualitative analyses show that LLM reasoning behavior under controlled operator edits is inconsistent, regardless of model size or family: models sometimes adapt correctly to structural changes but often fail to track their logical consequences. The results from this automated stress test enable an evaluation of language models across different dimensions and help measure the reliability of their reasoning.

SCHEDBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLM Constraint Faithfulness in Natural-Language Combinatorial Scheduling

This paper introduces SCHEDBench, a natural-language benchmark for evaluating combinatorial scheduling constraint faithfulness under surface-form variation. Grounded in canonical scheduling instances and solver-derived feasibility and optimality, SCHEDBench assesses whether large language models (LLMs) generate schedules with the same constraint-feasible behavior across varied natural-language (NL) surface forms. SCHEDBench spans 1,132 instances across job-shop scheduling problems (JSP), single and multi-mode resource-constrained project scheduling problems (RCPSP), nurse rostering/scheduling, and curriculum timetabling problems of varying difficulty. Instances are templated into natural language problems using domain-specific templates, themed entities, lexical-syntactic template rephrasing, and constraint-level surface-form variation, with reference solutions verified for feasibility and objective optimality. Across thirteen frontier and open-weight LLMs, we find that models are not reliably invariant to semantically equivalent renderings of the same scheduling problem. Surface-form variation reduces feasibility and induces above-noise shifts in per-instance hard-constraint violations on matched instances. Among the tested isolated axes, constraint reordering yields the clearest above-noise sensitivity.

Maximum Satisfiability of Simple Temporal Problems

The Simple Temporal Problem (STP) is a core framework for quantitative temporal constraints. As STP data can be inconsistent, we study MAXSTP: compute a maximum-cardinality consistent subset of constraints. This extension is NP-hard, and we analyze its parameterized complexity under measures that capture practically relevant instance features: the number of variables $n$ (instance scale), the maximum coefficient magnitude $k$ (numeric range), and structural parameters of the constraint graph such as treewidth $tw$ (decomposability) and vertex cover size $vc$ (density). We show that MAXSTP is W[1]-hard parameterized by $n$, implying that $n$ and parameters that depend on $n$ (including $tw$ and $vc$) are insufficient for fixed-parameter tractability. For combined parameters, we give an $O^*(k^n)$-time algorithm, yielding single-exponential solvability for fixed $k$. While $k+tw$ remains W[1]-hard, MAXSTP is in XP via an $O^*((n\cdot k)^{tw})$ algorithm. Our results suggest that MAXSTP is often computationally harder than optimizing qualitative CSPs. We verify that many such problems (including RCC-8 and Allen's algebra) are FPT when parameterized by $n$ or $tw$. However, we also demonstrate that FPT algorithms for MAXSTP are indeed possible but with other parameters such as $k + vc$.

G-RRM: Guiding Symbolic Solvers with Recurrent Reasoning Models

In this work, we focus on SE-RRMs, a symbol-equivariant instantiation of RRMs that exhibits improved extrapolation to larger problem sizes. We propose a neuro-symbolic approach, ``Guiding with Recurrent Reasoning Models'' (G-RRM), which integrates SE-RRMs with symbolic solvers for constraint satisfaction problems. SE-RRMs act as neural solvers that generate full solution proposals and guide classical symbolic solvers, such as backtracking or SAT-based methods like Glucose 4.1 and CaDiCaL 3.0.0, that produce globally correct solutions. Centrally, we investigate when neural guidance with G-RRM improves the search efficiency of symbolic solvers. % Our experiments show that the efficacy of G-RRM depends on two conditions: first, the problem instances must have an expansive combinatorial search space to expose potential gains, and second, the solver architecture must be capable of dynamically overwriting its branching choices to recover when neural hints are imperfect. When these conditions hold, guidance drives median conflict counts to zero and yields significant wall-clock speedups: on $9\times9$ Sudoku, where the SE-RRM correctly solves $91.1\%$ of instances, backtracking accelerates by $33.3\times$ and Glucose 4.1 by $1.70\times$ (median, $p<0.001$), with Glucose 4.1 retaining a $1.17\times$ speedup on perfect-hint $25\times25$ grids. In contrast, CaDiCaL 3.0.0, whose runtime is overhead-dominated and which always respects the injected branching hints rather than overwriting them, shows no significant speedup (median $1.02\times$, n.s.) and even a small significant mean slowdown ($0.90\times$) on $9\times9$. These results delineate the regimes in which neural guidance translates into practical speedups.

DiBS: Diffusion-Informed Branch Selection

Sudoku is a representative constraint satisfaction problem that requires global structural reasoning under strict discrete constraints. The existing works of solving Sudoku mainly focus on two dominant approaches, i.e., traditional heuristic and deep learning solver. However, they suffer from two complementary limitations: learning-based solvers lack hard correctness guarantees, while complete symbolic solvers are still prone to long-tail search. To address these shortcomings, we propose a novel diffusion model-guided approach, termed as DiBS, for the branch selection search process. Specifically, DiBS keeps the symbolic solver complete and uses the diffusion model as a branch-ordering guide. The core method is ranking candidate values under the current partial assignment and lightweight consistency signal. Furthermore, we provide an in-depth theoretical proof to reveal how it works and why it works. Experiments on the challenging Royle 17-clue Sudoku benchmark show that our DiBS substantially reduces search cost relative to strong heuristic baselines, especially in nodes, backtracks, and long-tail percentiles. Besides, these results confirm that learned global guidance is effective on hard instances where branch-order mistakes are most expensive. All codes are available at https://github.com/shanxierdan/DiBS.

Position: Certified Correctness in Neural Constraint Reasoning Requires Symbolic Integration

Neural solvers for constraint satisfaction problems have achieved remarkable in-distribution accuracy, yet they suffer from a fundamental limitation persistent constraint violations occur under distribution shifts even when the model reports high confidence. This position paper argues that when hard constraints exist and the cost of verification is relatively low, neural constraint reasoning must prioritize symbolic integration over pure learning. We justify our focus on Sudoku as a representative NP-complete testbed because it exhibits a sharp asymmetry between easy verification and hard solving: checking a candidate solution requires only polynomial time $O(n^{2})$, while finding a solution may require exponential search. Through a comprehensive survey of solving methods spanning deterministic algorithms, metaheuristic optimization, learning-based approaches, and language-conditioned reasoning, we demonstrate that neural-only methods without instance-level certification fail to achieve the provable correctness that symbolic and neuro-symbolic approaches provide. We advocate for a bidirectional integration in which neural methods enhance symbolic solvers by learning heuristics and converting percepts into symbols, while symbolic methods verify neural outputs to ensure their reliability. To operationalize this position, we propose a multi-agent certified reasoning framework that demonstrates how this integration can achieve both computational efficiency and provable correctness.