Many sequential construction tasks have exact terminal symmetries even though execution is directed and depends on history. Process evidence supplies order; terminal correspondence transports it between equivalent outcomes; the realized state updates relevance. These roles define a carrier framework: transport what the outcome preserves; refine what history changes. SymBuild combines transported process and state residual ranks by ordinal rank meet; its top-$k$ prefix exactly equals their top-$k$ union, yielding a tight worst-case verifier query bound under prefix information. We evaluate SymBuild in three construction domains: computer-aided design (CAD) assembly, Mini-Programs, and exact-fill packing, and test additional framework instantiations in all four domains. SymBuild improves the area under the anytime verified success curve by up to 6.77, 21.75, and 8.68 points over initial-static in the three construction domains. Refresh gains recur beyond SymBuild under alternative aggregation, planning, and learned scoring methods; on Geometric Reasoning Network (GRN) target removal, direct Combined refresh has the lowest mean capped verifier cost at all three scales and reduces learned state evaluations by factors of 6.57-12.20 relative to refreshed population-guided search. Together, these results support the carrier framework and demonstrate that SymBuild is an effective, analyzable method for anytime verified construction.
Reasoning shortcuts are solutions of a neurosymbolic system's rules that produce correct predictions through unintended concepts. A recent framework of Takemura, Inoue, and Nishino analyzes them through an automorphism group of value relabelings and asks, as its central open question, when rules pin concepts down. We first show that the framework's key definition, one shared permutation applied at every position, does not apply as stated to any of the four heterogeneous benchmarks it was evaluated on, and that the most direct embedding, padding domains to a common size, produces confident false pathology: 90.91% of solution pairs reported unexplained on CLE4EVR, where every well-defined member of the hierarchy we introduce reports 0%, and the padded verdict's content rotates with configuration-file ordering. Re-measuring eleven rule families under fifteen pre-specified predictions (thirteen confirmed), unexplained-pair rates span 0% to 99.9999% and track provable structure: six theorems give sufficient conditions for transitivity and its failure, including a Free Slot Lemma certifying Kandinsky's pathology from syntax alone. For circuit-given rules, deciding symmetry-inertness of a coordinate is coNP-complete; nontrivial-automorphism existence is coNP-hard under randomized reductions, lies in $Σ_2^p$, is not $Σ_2^p$-complete unless PH collapses, and on monotone circuits is coNP-complete outright. In the Boolean case transitivity is classified exactly: automorphisms explain everything iff the solution set is an affine coset. Weakly supervised models place all 94 observed shortcuts at the one level the componentwise theory flags and none at the 48 it certifies transitive; twelve typed-ambiguous levels produce none, separating what symmetry permits from what optimization selects, and a dual-head control replicates the geography. All numbers trace to released artifacts.
Krzysztof Olejniczak, Radoslav Dimitrov, Xingyue Huang +3cs.LG cs.AI cs.LO
Formal theorem provers based on large language models (LLMs) are highly sensitive to superficial variations in problem representation: semantically equivalent statements can exhibit drastically different proof success rates, revealing a failure to respect structural symmetries inherent in formal mathematics. This raises a central question: what are the right symmetries for formal theorem proving? We introduce rewriting categories, a category-theoretic framework capturing the compositional, generally non-invertible transformations induced by proof tactics, and use it to formalize two symmetry notions: proof equivariance, governing how proof distributions transform under rewrites, and success invariance (i.e., invariance of success probability), requiring equivalent statements to be solved with the same probability. We observe that state-based next-tactic provers naturally satisfy proof equivariance by operating on proof states. In contrast, state-of-the-art LLM-based provers satisfy neither property, exhibiting large performance variation across equivalent formulations. To mitigate this, we propose test-time methods that aggregate over equivalent rewritings of the input, showing theoretically that they recover success invariance in the sampling limit, and empirically, that they improve robustness and performance under fixed inference budgets. Our results highlight symmetry as a key missing inductive bias in LLM-based theorem proving and suggest test-time computation as a practical route to approximate it.