Cognitive Schemas, Laws and Tasks

Many reasoning tasks are not well described by a single left-to-right chain: a solver may need to pursue a plausible branch, observe delayed failure, and return to the latest prefix that can still be completed. We introduce Pyligent, a training and inference framework inspired by the Diligent Learner formulation that represents reasoning as validated search over partial solution chains. A task validator labels generated continuations and failures, and the resulting search trees are converted into supervised targets for three actions: continue, finish, and backtrack, with optional traces that summarize abandoned branches. We evaluate Pyligent on a hidden directed graph task designed to isolate delayed-failure recovery, and on structured reasoning domains with exact validators, including $4{\times}4$ Sudoku, Sudoku with reasoning traces, and Blocksworld. Compared with gold-only supervised fine-tuning, Pyligent improves solve rate by $72.7$ percentage points on hidden graphs, by $17$ and $18$ points on mixed and expert Sudoku, by $27$ and $14$ points on mixed and expert Sudoku with reasoning traces, and by $13$ points on Blocksworld. These results suggest that explicit failed-branch supervision can teach useful recovery behavior beyond imitation of polished solution chains.

We ask whether structural properties of intermediate grid states predict whether a symbolic ARC-AGI solver will succeed, framed as a test of conditional mutual information I(X;Y|task) > 0. Across 44,800 runs spanning two architecturally distinct solvers (beam search and Stochastic DFS), 400 ARC tasks, 28 configurations per solver, and both training and evaluation splits, hand-crafted grid descriptors measured at 50% trajectory completion discriminate successful from failed runs within the same task (mean within-task best-feature AUC = 0.885, p < 0.001 under within-task label permutation). Most predictive content lies along a single grid-complexity axis. The result generalizes across solver architectures: a feature selected on one solver predicts success on the other with AUC 0.747-0.762 in all four transfer directions (p < 0.001, leakage controlled). On a pre-registered held-out set of 41 reliable tasks, the frozen feature n_components_final achieves AUC = 0.765 (95% CI [0.717, 0.810], p < 0.001), robust under task-clustered bootstrap resampling and cross-solver task collapsing. The signal is not explained by solver capacity (configuration-residualized AUC = 0.927 and 0.896 for beam search and SDFS, p < 0.001) and is only weakly coupled to score trajectories (R^2 approximately 0). Early stopping at 50% completion reduces beam-search compute by 33.6% while retaining 98.9% of solves; degenerate-trajectory detection reduces SDFS compute by 65.3% with no solve loss. Finally, on 229 of 400 evaluation tasks the DSL primitive library produces no valid transition from the input grid. This 0-step collapse is invariant to search budget and universally failed by beam search, indicating a DSL coverage limitation rather than a search-budget effect.

Scientific papers contain fine-grained records of problem solving: authors mention technical obstacles and methods that were used to address them, often along with reasoning on why those methods were chosen. We introduce MUSE (Mining Underlying Scientific Explanations), a full-text, multi-domain resource of scientific Problem-Solution-Rationale (P-S-R) triplets. We curate 579 expert-annotated full-text paragraphs, with a rich annotation schema covering salient problem, solution, and rationale spans, solves and rationale_of links and conceptual coreference. A modular extraction pipeline scales this annotation to build a high-quality knowledge base of 37K source-grounded P-S-R triplets. We evaluate the extraction components and include a preliminary experiment training a rationale-supervised LLM for scientific problem solving. Interestingly, we find that rationale supervision improves performance on complex, multi-constraint problems but can harm performance on simpler ones.