Rahul Nair, Bastian Lipka, Elizabeth Dalycs.AI cs.LG cs.SC
In many practical applications of generative AI systems, from tax rules to airline baggage allowance, responses to natural language queries must respect written policies or rules. We present a hybrid symbolic approach that expresses policies in formal logic and at inference time exploits the representation power of language models for fact extraction to ground predicates, and an answer set solver for reasoning such that responses are interpretable, auditable, and as we show, accurate and robust under input perturbations. Specifically, we show this separation of extraction and reasoning steps outperforms policy-as-prompt and policy-as-code methods in most cases with ~10x reduction in token usage. The results point to the value of structured reasoning and symbolic solvers in conjunction with generative models to make robust decisions involving objective criteria.
Activation patching and weight-space ablation both claim a component is causally responsible for a behavior, yet they act on different objects: one forward pass versus the parameters behind every forward pass. We ask when they agree. We study an idealized model where a conditional computation is carried additively through a residual stream, $F(x)=F_0(x)+\sum_iα_i(x)v_i$, read out by a linear functional, and prove three exact results. First, deleting a subset of carriers collapses a matched input pair onto the same unconditional output \emph{if and only if} the removal is symmetric on the pair and leaves no outside contrast; the error is deterministic, and we give its exact form even when the two conditions hold only approximately. Second, patching a carrier moves the readout by its donor-receiver \emph{contrast}, while ablating it moves the readout by its \emph{absolute level}; neither bounds the other, and we construct pairs where every single-carrier patch flips the decision while no single-carrier ablation does. Third, for an attention head composed with its own layer's normalization and MLP, we derive an exact first-order interaction formula with a provably second-order remainder, vanishing identically when only the MLP is ablated but not, in general, when a head is. Small transformers trained on a synthetic conditional task illustrate all three predictions: across thirty-nine ablation configurations the measured interaction is strongly rank-correlated with the idealized model's predictive accuracy (Spearman $-0.83$), and a second task and architecture reproduces the same pattern, including a further polarity reversal. The single-block interaction result extends past one residual block, and the synthetic validation is tested against a real pretrained model, in a companion paper that takes this theory further along both axes.
Logical rule induction seeks interpretable rules that transfer across propositional schemas. This requires respecting symmetries: atom naming, example order, polarity flips, and label swap. Enforcing exact symmetry by construction lets one trained inducer scale beyond its training schemas. Our central contribution is a canonical export that decodes a discrete rule from literal scores. It needs no retraining and is exactly equivariant whenever those scores respect the symmetries. We instantiate it on the Neural Rule Inducer, a disjunctive-normal-form (DNF) foundation model that natively respects only example order. We restore the remaining symmetries through architecture, inference, and training. On synthetic stress tests, accuracy on the support labels stays stable at much larger schemas, and rule fidelity on fresh inputs remains above the unmodified model. On real data, accuracy improves most on larger schemas. The exported rule is exact on synthetic full-group tests and on schema-valid real-data tests. This is a mathematical property of the export rather than of a specific model, and we validate it empirically only on the NRI. Enforcing symmetry by construction turns this small-data pretrained model into a reusable, interpretable inducer that transfers to larger schemas.
Circuit extraction identifies a small set of model components whose presence preserves a target behavior under ablation, and the resulting circuit is often read as the mechanism behind that behavior. We argue that this reading is under-determined: preserving behavior does not single out one circuit, because the claim it supports depends on which circuit is reported and how two circuits are compared. We make this concrete in a synthetic Lean tactic-prediction benchmark -- predicting the next step of a proof -- where fixed proof rules with randomized surface form let differences between extracted circuits be attributed to these choices rather than to the task. Across dense and weight-sparse checkpoints (most weights constrained to zero) of the same transformer, evaluated on atomic (single-rule) and compositional (multi-rule) proofs, we vary which extracted object is reported (a compact prediction-preserving circuit, a broader graph that also keeps surrounding read, write, and routing structure, or the smallest subgraph meeting a post-ablation loss threshold), and whether each attention head's query and key are represented jointly or separately. Exact component-to-component edge overlap is low and sensitive to these choices, at times dropping to a random baseline, while two coarser summaries stay stable: the set of selected attention heads, and the circuit-size ranking of conditions that differ in which supervised checkpoint initializes reinforcement learning (RL). The largest accuracy gains from RL on compositional proofs come with the most structure beyond the atomic circuits. A circuit-level claim is therefore well defined only once one states which circuit is reported, the pruning threshold used to extract it, and the level at which circuits are compared. We distill these requirements into a reporting practice for circuit-extraction studies.
Michal Štefánik, Philipp Mondorf, Andreas Waldis +11cs.AI
We propose the AIMO Interpretability Challenge, a competition on distinguishing robust from spurious reasoning in frontier mathematical language models based on the models' internal mechanisms. The challenge is motivated by a central limitation of standard reasoning benchmarks: strong final-answer accuracy does not reveal whether a model relies on stable reasoning mechanisms or exploits brittle reasoning shortcuts. Building on AI Mathematical Olympiad (AIMO) problems and submissions, together with resources from the Fields Model Initiative, the competition will provide (1) newly-published olympiad-level math reasoning problems and their symbolic representations, allowing generation of novel functional variants, (2) access to frontier reasoning models, and (3) assessments of models' adversarial robustness on these problems. Participants will use these resources, along with our computing infrastructure support, to develop methods for identifying which models solve problems robustly. Our competition will also create a new, open robustness benchmark and baseline systems, aiming to provide a lasting foundation for standard benchmarking in mathematical reasoning and interpretability. Scientifically, the competition connects interpretability and generalization research around a central question in AI research: can we determine if, and to what extent, the decision-making of frontier AI models is generalizable and thus, reliable?
Jose Luis Lima de Jesus Silvacs.AI cs.AR cs.LG cs.NE
Neural networks can learn algorithmic input-output mappings, but trusting a learned executor requires more than a correct final answer because the state transitions that produce it are usually hidden. To make those transitions visible, we introduce a trace-supervised symbolic neural CPU, a factorized learned execution architecture that combines recurrent control, an explicit operation router over a fixed differentiable arithmetic-logic unit bank, destination-masked register writeback, complete trajectory supervision and matched fixed-point replay. The model exposes the selected operation, source and destination registers, register trajectory, memory signals and writeback semantics at every step. On the principal 16-wide benchmark, the non-quantized executor reproduces reference execution exactly, while the eight-bit quantization-simulated executor preserves the symbolic operation path through programs of 1,000 instructions. When the same execution is evaluated against a matched fixed-point replay, the residual numerical drift disappears, showing that it comes from a mismatch between continuous and low-precision reference semantics rather than from execution failure. We compare recurrent, Transformer, temporal-convolution, temporal graph-inspired and state-space controllers, and the ablations show that operation-gate supervision is necessary for an inspectable execution path. Hidden-opcode memory-pressure tasks expose the remaining limits in delayed state use and temporal binding. We also extend the interface with ValueMemory, hybrid adaptive leaky integrate-and-fire controllers, candidate-constrained symbolic control trained through behaviour cloning and actor-critic reinforcement learning, and an RV32I base-integer semantic bridge. Together, these results establish a trace-verifiable framework for interpretable, low-precision and controllable neural execution.
Large language models (LLMs) achieve strong performance on mathematical reasoning benchmarks, yet the mathematically meaningful skills underlying their reasoning remain underexplored. We introduce \texttt{SHAPE}, a framework that analyzes Chain-of-Thought (CoT) trajectories through two lenses developed in mathematics education: (1) semantic spaces: the model's evolving mathematical interpretations of a problem (e.g., algebraic, geometric), and (2) heuristics: the specific mathematical actions taken within those spaces (e.g., simplifying the problem, working backward). We first use \texttt{SHAPE} to analyze the reasoning patterns of various models. Our findings reveal that the mathematical heuristics employed by a model better explain final answer correctness than traditional CoT features. Furthermore, models are likely to reach correct solutions by concentrating their reasoning effort within a few semantic spaces rather than exploring many disparate ones -- a pattern consistent with human behavior. Next, we utilize the \texttt{SHAPE} lens to evaluate whether post-training truly enhances mathematical proficiency. We find that reinforcement learning induces mode-seeking in heuristic usage. Lastly, we post-train LLMs by promoting diverse heuristics and demonstrate its effectiveness in improving accuracy. Overall, \texttt{SHAPE} provides a theoretically-grounded diagnostic framework for decoding LLM reasoning and offers a new path toward post-training LLMs for math reasoning. The code for our model is available at https://github.com/holi-lab/SHAPE-of-CoT
Julius Monsen, Jakob Suchan, Mehul Bhatt +1cs.AI cs.HC cs.RO
We present a general answer set programming based hybrid quantitative-qualitative method for computing constrained branching trajectory modes for moving objects in real-world settings. The method performs constrained traversal of an environment graph, enumerating geometrically admissible motion behaviours as stable models, each constituting a distinct trajectory mode characterised by both domain-dependent and independent factors such as derived event sequence, map topology, and domain norms. The hybrid trajectory computation method is generally applicable across motion characteristics typically encountered in diverse dynamic domains with moving objects, e.g., autonomous driving. We demonstrate applicability and highlight how computed trajectories are traceable to their underlying stable model, thereby affording verifiable interpretability that purely learned approaches cannot provide. We also perform an empirical evaluation with Argoverse 2, a large-scale real-world autonomous driving benchmark representative of the class of dynamic domains within the scope of the proposed method.
Numbers have algebraic structure that standard neural embeddings often fail to expose. We introduce Prime Fourier Embeddings (PFE), which encode integers as prime-indexed (cos, sin) pairs derived from the harmonic analysis of Q, providing a pre-structured representation in which modular arithmetic reduces to selecting the relevant prime channel rather than discovering algebraic structure from scratch. We prove that any linear map equivariant with respect to the product group action on PFE must be block-diagonal with one independent block per prime -- a consequence of Schur's lemma applied to the resulting character decomposition. For square-free composite moduli, the Chinese Remainder Theorem predicts which prime channels are task-relevant. Both predictions are confirmed empirically: ablation studies show specialization ratios exceeding 500x between task-relevant and task-irrelevant channels, with perfect in-distribution test accuracy across all square-free composite moduli tested.
Language models can generate plausible rationales for their predictions, but these explanations may not faithfully represent the model's internal reasoning. We propose verifier-coupled reasoning, a framework that inserts inline claims into reasoning traces and trains an auxiliary consistency head to predict programmatic verifier outputs from rationale-span hidden states. The central finding is a gap between decodability and faithfulness: consistency training reliably makes verifier information decodable from rationale representations, but decodability does not guarantee faithful generation. In LeanCheck (formal theorem proving), rationale-only and proof-only pooling achieve perfect directional separation under counterfactual conflict. In KataGo (Go engine), commentary spans encode 10-way win-rate buckets at 81% accuracy. Yet in a code setting, the model achieves 98.6% coupling while its generated explanations remain unfaithful: fluent prose with correct structured claims, but describing unrelated algorithms; a controlled pretrained-vs-from-scratch comparison shows the gap is not capacity-driven. Synthetic activation patching confirms causal influence (73-89% vs. 31% baseline), FEVER reveals that evidence-only pooling isolates genuine evidence sensitivity at the cost of raw accuracy, and per-claim analysis shows that consistency loss disproportionately benefits fine-grained claims over binary ones. These results establish that consistency losses are effective diagnostics and representation-shaping tools, but not sufficient conditions for faithful reasoning.
Neural Combinatorial Optimization (NCO) achieves strong performance, yet its black-box nature remains a key roadblock to deployment and scientific diagnosis. Standard interpretability tools, such as Concept Bottleneck Models (CBMs), are ill-equipped for NCO, whose decisions are dynamic, state-dependent, and lack proper concept vocabulary definition. To close this gap, we introduce Evolving Programmatic Bottlenecks (EPB), to our knowledge, the first framework for interpreting NCO policies by distilling black-box NCO models into human-readable program portfolios. EPB employs an LLM to autonomously evolve a bank of programs, where each program's per-step action distribution serves as the bottleneck. EPB works through an iterative framework: Block I fixes program bank capacity and introduces a hybrid textual-numerical gradient descent scheme that couples numerical gradients for student router updates and textual gradients for LLM-based program revision; Block II dynamically adapts bank capacity via fault-targeted expansion and redundancy pruning. Extensive experiments demonstrate EPB's effectiveness and broad applicability, where the distilled program portfolios largely match original performance. EPB also reveals that NCO behavior shifts across optimization stages and can be approximated as a composition of classic heuristic variants. Our work advances interpretable NCO and establishes EPB as a promising tool for interpreting sequential decision-making models.
Spatial reasoning requires both location-bound computation and location-invariant structure: agents must make local moves while preserving route, object, or constraint-level plans. We propose interaction locality, a task-geometry-aware framework for measuring whether information flow stays within nearby cells or semantic segments, or crosses them. We instantiate the framework with sparse-autoencoder feature ablations and finite-noise activation patching, with structural Jacobian and attention checks reported in the appendix, and apply it to HRM and TRM, two compact hierarchical and recursive reasoning models, on Maze-Hard, Sudoku Extreme, and ARC-AGI. Across these models, activation patching gives the clearest architectural fingerprint: high-level recurrent states tend to write information within nearby cells or same-segment units, while repeated recursive updates accumulate these local writes into broader solution structure. This pattern holds across maze paths, Sudoku constraints, and ARC-AGI object neighborhoods, with the strongest concentration in TRM. To test whether interaction locality extends beyond toy-yet-challenging grid benchmarks, we also apply it to MTU3D, a large-scale embodied 3D scene-grounding model. In this MTU3D setting, causal spatial locality appears primarily at the transition where visual scene features are handed to the downstream grounding module, rather than uniformly throughout the visual encoder. This contrast suggests that the local-to-global handoff observed in HRM and TRM is tied to explicit recursive reasoning dynamics, while embodied 3D models may concentrate causal spatial structure at module boundaries. Interaction locality turns the intuitive local-execution/global-planning story into a reproducible measurement framework for recursive and embodied spatial reasoning.