cs.LGMar 2, 2026

Symbol-Equivariant Recurrent Reasoning Models

Authors: Richard Freinschlag, Timo Bertram, Erich Kobler, Andreas Mayr, Günter Klambauer

Organizations: ELLIS Unit Linz, LIT AI Lab & Institute for Machine Learning, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria · Clinical Research Institute for Medical AI, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria

Abstract

Reasoning problems such as Sudoku and ARC-AGI remain challenging for neural networks. The structured problem solving architecture family of Recurrent Reasoning Models (RRMs), including Hierarchical Reasoning Model (HRM) and Tiny Recursive Model (TRM), offer a compact alternative to large language models, but currently handle symbol symmetries only implicitly via costly data augmentation. We introduce Symbol-Equivariant Recurrent Reasoning Models (SE-RRMs), which enforce permutation equivariance at the architectural level through symbol-equivariant layers, guaranteeing identical solutions under symbol or color permutations. SE-RRMs outperform prior RRMs on 9x9 Sudoku and generalize from just training on 9x9 to smaller 4x4 and larger 16x16 and 25x25 instances, to which existing RRMs cannot extrapolate. On ARC-AGI-1 and ARC-AGI-2, SE-RRMs achieve competitive performance with substantially less data augmentation and only 2 million parameters, demonstrating that explicitly encoding symmetry improves the robustness and scalability of neural reasoning. Code is available at https://github.com/ml-jku/SE-RRM.

Figures & tables

Appendix figures & tables10 assets

Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.

Appendix

Explore similar work

Aug 2, 2026

Recursive Vision Language Models for General Symbolic Reasoning

Hard symbolic-reasoning tasks such as Sudoku, maze pathfinding, and ARC remain challenging for LLMs due to their fixed-depth autoregressive reasoning, which limits systematic search, refinement, and backtracking. While recursive models such as Hierarchical Reasoning Model (HRM) and Tiny Recursive Model (TRM) address this limitation through iterative latent-state refinement, they are typically task-specific and do not leverage pretrained language priors. We propose R-Qwen, a recursive reasoning framework built upon a pretrained Qwen backbone. R-Qwen repeatedly refines a candidate solution through programmatic self-recursion and deep supervision, combining the structured iterative computation of recursive models with the linguistic and reasoning priors of pretrained LLMs. We further adapt Hierarchical Supervision Weighting (HSW) to autoregressive models by exponentially weighting losses across recursive steps. HSW reduces gradient variance by at least 50%, improves the signal-to-noise ratio of stochastic gradients, and accelerates convergence. Across eight challenging benchmarks, R-Qwen consistently outperforms prior recursive reasoning models and substantially larger LLMs while using a comparable number of trainable parameters. Notably, on ARC-AGI dataset, our model achieves a 27.6% improvement over the baseline, highlighting the effectiveness of recursive refinement for general symbolic reasoning. These results suggest that recursive reasoning mechanisms and pretrained language model priors are complementary approaches for improving symbolic puzzle-solving. Code and models will be released after acceptance.
Jul 2, 2026

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 9×99\times9 Sudoku, where the SE-RRM correctly solves 91.1%91.1\% of instances, backtracking accelerates by 33.3×33.3\times and Glucose 4.1 by 1.70×1.70\times (median, p<0.001p<0.001), with Glucose 4.1 retaining a 1.17×1.17\times speedup on perfect-hint 25×2525\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 1.02×1.02\times, n.s.) and even a small significant mean slowdown (0.90×0.90\times) on 9×99\times9. These results delineate the regimes in which neural guidance translates into practical speedups.
Mar 3, 2026

Form Follows Function: Recursive Stem Model

Recursive reasoning models such as Hierarchical Reasoning Model (HRM) and Tiny Recursive Model (TRM) show that small, weight-shared networks can solve compute-heavy and NP puzzles by iteratively refining latent states, but their training typically relies on deep supervision and/or long unrolls that increase wall-clock cost and can bias the model toward greedy intermediate behavior. We introduce Recursive Stem Model (RSM), a recursive reasoning approach that keeps the TRM-style backbone while changing the training contract so the network learns a stable, depth-agnostic transition operator. RSM fully detaches the hidden-state history during training, treats early iterations as detached "warm-up" steps, and applies loss only at the final step. We further grow the outer recursion depth HH and inner compute depth LL independently and use a stochastic outer-transition scheme (stochastic depth over HH) to mitigate instability when increasing depth. This yields two key capabilities: (i) >20×>20\times faster training than TRM while improving accuracy (≈5×\approx 5\times reduction in error rate), and (ii) test-time scaling where inference can run for arbitrarily many refinement steps (∼20,000Htest≫20Htrain\sim 20,000 H_{\text{test}} \gg 20 H_{\text{train}}), enabling additional "thinking" without retraining. On Sudoku-Extreme, RSM reaches 97.5% exact accuracy with test-time compute (within ~1 hour of training on a single A100), and on Maze-Hard (30×3030 \times 30) it reaches ~80% exact accuracy in ~40 minutes using attention-based instantiation. Finally, because RSM implements an iterative settling process, convergence behavior provides a simple, architecture-native reliability signal: non-settling trajectories warn that the model has not reached a viable solution and can be a guard against hallucination, while stable fixed points can be paired with domain verifiers for practical correctness checks.