Compositional generalization remains a foundational weakness of modern neural networks, limiting their robustness and applicability in domains requiring out-of-distribution reasoning. A central, yet unverified, assumption in neuro-symbolic AI is that compositional reasoning will emerge as a byproduct of successful symbol grounding. This work presents the first systematic empirical analysis to challenge this assumption by disentangling the contributions of grounding and reasoning. To operationalize this investigation, we introduce the Iterative Logic Tensor Network (iLTN), a fully differentiable architecture designed for multi-step deduction. Using a formal taxonomy of generalization -- probing for novel entities, unseen relations, and complex rule compositions -- we demonstrate that a model trained solely on a grounding objective fails to generalize. In contrast, our full iLTN, trained jointly on perceptual grounding and multi-step reasoning, achieves high zero-shot accuracy across all tasks. Our findings provide conclusive evidence that symbol grounding, while necessary, is insufficient for generalization, establishing that reasoning is not an emergent property but a distinct capability that requires an explicit learning objective.
Compositional generalization\unicodex2013the ability to systematically process novel combinations of known components\unicodex2013is a hallmark of human intelligence; however, its theoretical foundation in neural networks is not yet well understood. This paper establishes a necessary and sufficient condition for provable compositional generalization, precisely characterizing its boundary. Conceptually, the condition consists of two principles: (i) structural alignment, where a model's computational graph aligns with a task's true compositional hierarchy, and (ii) unambiguous minimized representations, where each component encodes adequate but not redundant information on the training data. The result is fully proved and machine-verified in Lean 4 and holds even in few-shot and one-shot regimes. The necessity direction establishes that provable compositional generalization cannot circumvent these requirements, while the sufficiency direction yields a unified inductive bias that jointly governs architectural design, training data properties, and regularization strategies. Building on this condition, we develop an example algorithmic approach, illustrate it through a controlled minimal example, and further demonstrate the condition on the SCAN jump task. All conclusions are derived mathematically without reliance on empirical validation. Our work provides a theoretical characterization of provable compositional generalization.
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.
Current agentic workflows usually involve decomposing user requests into sequences of tool calls with correctly resolved parameters, the results of which are processed through reasoning traces in the language model's context window. The prevailing route to improve such reasoning is test-time scaling, which trains models to search over long chains of thought; but the resulting capability is entangled in model weights, is not verifiable step-by-step, and is costly at inference. We present Forethought, a neurosymbolic reasoning system that instead treats reasoning as an explicit, verifiable program, that builds from a library of symbolic and neural primitives which are composed through a domain-specific language. The result are reasoning programs, which are concrete representations of the model's work, and as such can be inspected and modified before deployment. Instantiated as a tool-calling execution kernel and evaluated across five benchmarks, Forethought improves base-model accuracy by about 30% relative and outperforms vanilla prompting, reinforcement learning scaffolds, and prompt-evolution methods, enabling small models to match or exceed frontier models capabilities. In a direct comparison, a non-reasoning model augmented with Forethought competes with a dedicated reasoning model while requiring roughly three orders of magnitude less post-training investment, and remains model-agnostic and auditable.
Vishvesh Bhat, Jay Vaghasiya, Emmanuel Anaya Gonzalez