Algorithmic Reasoning

Flow Language Models (FLMs) have emerged as a continuous-state alternative to discrete diffusion language models, yet the role of their continuous representations in reasoning remains unclear. We investigate this question by comparing the reasoning efficiency of FLMs and discrete diffusion models, measured by solution accuracy under matched denoising steps. Unlike discrete diffusion, which passes categorical states between denoising steps, FLMs evolve a continuous sequence representation throughout denoising and decodes it into discrete tokens only at the end. Our theoretical analysis shows, from a superposition perspective, how information retained in these continuous states can benefit reasoning. Intermediate-state interventions provide further empirical support for this theoretical account, showing that removing information about alternative candidates reduces subsequent solution recovery. Together, these findings show that FLMs allow evidence for multiple candidates to persist and inform subsequent reasoning before a discrete answer is produced. Furthermore, our experiments on maze planning and Sudoku tasks show that FLMs achieve greater reasoning efficiency in the few-step regime: FLMs achieves higher sequence accuracy than discrete diffusion baselines at matched model sizes and small denoising steps. On maze planning tasks, FLMs can also achieve comparable accuracy with smaller models. For example, on Maze15, FLM reaches the 95% accuracy target at 64 denoising steps with 36.5% fewer parameters than MDLM. These findings point to continuous state spaces as a promising foundation for reasoning models that require fewer refinement steps.

State tracking requires an update at every input, but the depth a Transformer applies to each token is fixed regardless of sequence length. We introduce the Recurrent Looped Transformer (RLT), which splits its layers between a parallel causal encoder and a recurrent decoder. At each token, the decoder merges the encoder output with the previous token's final decoder state, so the computation path grows with sequence length at a fixed per-token cost. On six algorithmic tasks, we compare five splits of eight layers with an eight-layer Transformer over three seeds. Trained on at most 40 bits, two RLT splits generalize parity to 256 bits with 100% accuracy in every seed, while the Transformer stays at chance. On swap-based $S_5$ permutation tracking at eight times the training length, RLT reaches 97% final-state accuracy versus under 1% for the Transformer, and accuracy increases with decoder depth. On modular arithmetic beyond the training lengths, RLT reaches up to 93% versus 33% for the Transformer. Ablations show that these gains depend on the feedback: removing it drops parity and swap-based $S_5$ to chance at every split. Updating the feedback once per four-token chunk lets known tokens in a chunk run in parallel and keeps 64-bit parity at 99%, while permutation tracking depends on per-token feedback: chunking lowers length-64 swap-based $S_5$ from 100% to 20%.

Neural algorithmic reasoning, or aligning a neural network with an algorithmic paradigm, has emerged as an approach to solving polynomial-time-solvable and computationally harder combinatorial optimization problems. We propose a new message-passing framework based on the Chambolle-Pock Primal--Dual Hybrid Gradient (PDHG) method called \textsc{GraphPDHG} for solving general graph saddle-point problems. Theoretically, we show that \textsc{GraphPDHG} can efficiently solve a family of graph saddle-point problems by simulating PDHG. We also show that our network can learn an accelerated PDHG algorithm. Experimentally, we support our results on accelerated PDHG by evaluating the performance of our model as a learned warm start for second-order optimization techniques (SSNAL). We also show that alignment with PDHG leads to stronger size generalization than non-aligned graph neural network (GNN) baselines. Overall, we propose a novel architecture for solving a general family of optimization problems on graphs.

Recursive reasoning models apply a small shared Transformer block many times to refine a latent state. This gives them large effective depth with few parameters and makes them strong on algorithmic tasks. Such compact solvers are natural candidates for tools that an LLM can call on narrow algorithmic subproblems. However, existing models such as HRM, TRM and URM differ in architecture, gradient propagation and training procedure simultaneously. This makes it hard to tell what drives their performance, and their optimization is still poorly understood and often unstable. In this work we address both of these gaps. First, we study these questions under a unified experimental pipeline spanning six algorithmic domains. Individual controlled ablations are performed on representative domains, while the resulting recipe is evaluated across the full suite. The study reveals a surprisingly simple recipe for stable and generalizable recursive reasoning: an intermediate gradient horizon, large physical batches and controlled updates of the recurrent state. An explicit hierarchical architecture is not needed. Second, we combine these findings into a stable 13.6M-parameter model that achieves the strongest overall performance among the evaluated recursive baselines, with particularly large gains on out-of-distribution generalization. It raises Arithmetic OOD accuracy to 71.2%, from 36.2% for the strongest baseline, while reaching 98.41% on Sudoku and 59.5% pass@2 on ARC-AGI-1. Our results show that, within the recursive architectures studied here, performance depends strongly on how recurrence is optimized and stabilized. More broadly, it shows how AI systems can be improved by optimizing their components one at a time.

Modern AI architectures used to solve visual reasoning tasks typically rely heavily on global connectivity and synchronization. As biological systems demonstrate, though, sophisticated computation can be performed in a more decentralized fashion. In this work, we test the reasoning capabilities of Neural Cellular Automata (NCAs), networks of recurrent cells that use strictly local connectivity and asynchronous updates. NCAs have been extensively studied in artificial life experiments, but it is unclear whether they can perform complex multi-step reasoning. We show that NCAs produce spatio-temporal dynamics capable of solving challenging visual reasoning tasks, including large mazes, Sudoku, and ARC-AGI-1. Furthermore, we provide evidence that NCAs generalize out-of-distribution when running with larger grids, longer rollouts, or parallel trials; and that the latter can be made more efficient via pruning of redundant trajectories. We find that these generalization capabilities depend on training with sample replay and stochastic perturbations, and that stochasticity remains beneficial at test time. Finally, we show that NCAs are robust reasoners capable of dynamically modulating compute to recover efficiently from damage, and that they can scale to solve reasoning in raw pixel space.

Large language models perform strongly on competition mathematics, but their research-level reasoning remains difficult to evaluate systematically. Theoretical computer science (TCS) connects algorithm design to explicit guarantees and fundamental limits, providing a setting for evaluating whether models can justify computational improvements with arguments humans can inspect. We introduce TCSAlgBench, a benchmark and reusable pipeline for natural-language proof discovery, comprising 398 theorem-level challenges from 138 STOC and COLT 2026 papers. Expert-designed rules complete paper-specific context, preserve computational assumptions and quantitative guarantees, and withhold constructions when discovering an algorithm is part of the task. For each task, prover systems receive theorem statements and access to cited prior work. The pipeline supports fresh, versioned challenge batches from newly released papers. We evaluate ten model configurations from four families under direct inference and prover-verifier discussion, and compare four agent workflows under matched model-call opportunities. All evaluations use the full benchmark. In the model comparison, GPT-5.6 Sol max achieves the highest five-run verifier-accepted coverage at 23.6% after 10-round discussion. Discussion and repeated sampling improve coverage. In the separate agent comparison using GPT-5.5 xhigh, decomposition improves coverage over discussion, and agentic planning achieves the highest five-run verifier-accepted coverage at 25.4%. TCSAlgBench provides a refreshable testbed for measuring progress in model reasoning and studying how agent workflows support research-level proof discovery.

Despite the importance of reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR), the extent to which it can learn new reasoning capabilities remains debated. Here we study the optimization landscape of RLVR on algorithmic tasks, such as iterated group and quasigroup multiplication. To this end, we map entropy-regularized RLVR over myopic tabular policies onto an energy-based (spin-glass) model over deterministic policies. This mapping upper-bounds what RLVR can achieve, and lets us rigorously characterize the landscape in this tabular setting. We show, both theoretically and experimentally, that for a wide class of models and tasks with uncorrelated inputs, this landscape is benign, containing no local minima that could trap RLVR training. Rather, the practical difficulty of these tasks appears to stem, at least in part, from issues such as diffusive barriers and gradient-estimation error in traversing the landscape. These are genuine obstacles that can prevent a solution from being found, but they are distinct from the landscape itself being rugged. We show that these obstacles can often be mitigated through the choice of entropy regulator. Consistent with this theory, we find that a transformer trained from scratch, using only last-token rewards, successfully learns an algorithmic chain of thought for iterated non-Abelian group multiplications.

Capability and efficiency are two key dimensions of reasoning in large language models (LLMs). Capability refers to the ability to solve a given problem correctly, whereas efficiency refers to the ability to do so with limited resources. When LLMs use Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning to solve problems of controlled hardness, both the number of problems solved correctly and the number of tokens required to reach a correct answer depend on problem hardness and model size. However, how these factors jointly shape capability and efficiency remains poorly understood. Here, we use hierarchical Bayesian models to evaluate the capability and efficiency of LLMs from the DeepSeek-R1-Distill model family across four classes of arithmetic and algorithmic reasoning problems. At a fixed model size, the probability of correctly solving an instance decays approximately exponentially with instance size, our proxy for problem hardness. The decay scale grows sublinearly with model size, indicating that larger models are more capable, but that capability gains diminish with scale. Output length grows as a power law with instance size, which serves as a proxy for difficulty. However, the parameters of this power law do not vary systematically with model size, suggesting that larger models do not become more efficient. Together, these findings reveal potential limitations of naive scaling as a strategy for developing more capable AI systems: capability improves with diminishing returns, while efficiency shows little to no improvement.

Recursive models can continue updating their latent states beyond their nominal inference budget, so an incorrect output at that budget does not show whether computation is unfinished or has entered a persistently unsuccessful regime. We study the dynamics of completion in attention- and MLP-based Tiny Recursive Models (TRMs) on 1,000 hard Sudoku puzzles. Extending recurrence from the nominal 16 steps to 512 steps increases cumulative exact-solve accuracy from 59.2% to 87.5% for the attention model and from 74.4% to 91.9% for the MLP model, solving more than two-thirds of the puzzles unsolved in the nominal budget. Across both architectures, latent-state motion drops sharply after the first exact solution. Completed states are typically locally contractive along the trajectory direction, even though the same local Jacobian retains strongly expanding directions. We characterize this phenomenon as trajectory-conditioned anisotropic stability. Perturbation experiments confirm this directional stability across both models. The multi-step fate of the maximally expanding direction differs: it is absorbed within 16 steps in the attention model but persists longer in the MLP model. The anisotropic-stability pattern also holds for a second attention checkpoint. Together, these results distinguish nominal-budget failure from completed computation and identify a common dynamical signature of completion across two recurrent architectures.

Warm-start transfer can make algorithmic tasks generalize rapidly, yet it is unclear which model components provide the gain and whether that gain remains stable under continued optimization. We study cross-operator transfer on modular arithmetic and separate efficacy (early velocity) from stability (post-reach drawdown). In a scale-matched 108-run battery across 12 seed blocks (96-run 2^3 factorial plus 12-run scale control), transferring internal attention/MLP weights (B) alongside token embeddings and readout (E+U) improves early accuracy by 5.46 pp (Holm p=0.0039) and cuts confirmation latency by 558 steps (Holm p=0.0088). While readout plus internal-block transfer satisfies the pre-specified +/-500-step latency equivalence criterion in 1-layer models (TOST p=0.0011, though Full is faster in 11/12 paired seeds), a prospective 2-layer replication confirms the internal-block advantage (12/12 seeds, +704.67 integral units, p=4.88x10^-4) while revealing an architectural boundary: omitting donor embeddings falls 4475.6 units below Full, outside the +/-250-unit margin. Continued target training frequently triggers severe post-grokking relapse. Freezing transferred representation carriers (E, U) nearly eliminates offline relapse (19.40% -> 0.07%, Holm p=0.005859). Online validation-triggered gating slashes True Max Drawdown from 22.06% to 0.60% on 2a+b (p=0.000488), with prospective confirmations extending protection across affine, nonlinear quadratic, and 2-layer targets (10.94-23.47 pp reductions), distinguishing continual stabilization from static early stopping. In non-abelian S_5, unshielded transfer surges transiently (95.4% peak), but a prospective shielding cohort yields no confirmed benefit (+0.15 +/- 1.14 pp). These results establish a component-level dissociation between transfer acceleration and trajectory stability, and expose the empirical boundaries of parameter shielding.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly asked to reason over structured data such as graphs, yet how reliably they can carry out multi-step graph algorithms in language remains unclear. Existing evaluations tend to use simple tasks on small graphs, to score code generation rather than reasoning over the graph itself, or to fix a single input format. We introduce Graph Theory Bench (GT Bench), a benchmark covering 24 classical graph problems in 44 task-structure settings, with over 100,000 examples across four representations: natural language, structured language, adjacency list, and adjacency matrix. Evaluating eight LLMs on GT Bench shows that accuracy is strongly tied to the input representation, that the best representation shifts with graph density, size, and topology as well as with the model, and that this sensitivity persists, attenuated, in the strongest reasoning models. Building on these observations, we propose the Graph Theory Agent (GTA), which pairs a preference-trained representation selector with plan-and-decompose scaffolding around a frozen executor LLM. GTA lifts Phi-4 from 53.5% to 69.1% on the benchmark's easy split and from 33.0% to 41.5% on its hard split, outperforming eight prompting and agent baselines, and transfers without retraining to GraCoRe and NLGraph. Code for benchmark generation and evaluation: https://github.com/xzx34/GTA. The project homepage is available at https://xzx34.github.io/gta/.

Diffusion models and recursive reasoners are both iterative, but they carry information across iterations differently. We add a persistent hidden state to a diffusion denoiser and remove its timestep conditioning, leaving a single shared update that can be run to arbitrary depth. The result is an anytime solver: accuracy keeps improving with inference depth far beyond the rollout lengths and backpropagation window used in training, reaching 99.90% exact solve on Sudoku-Extreme. We also obtain 98.93% solve rate on Maze-Unique. Surprisingly, progressive denoising is unnecessary at inference: holding corruption at its maximum by replacing every non-clue variable with fresh Gaussian noise at each step retains near-perfect solving and converges to stable solutions. This simple noise-injection mechanism enables a single trajectory to efficiently explore the solution space and settle on the correct answer without parallel rollouts, candidate selection, or external verifiers required by prior reasoning models. Nonetheless, ordered annealed corruption remains critical during training, which suggests that diffusion's primary contribution to our anytime solver is not a sampling procedure at inference, but a denoising training curriculum.

Self-evolving reasoning frameworks train a Challenger to generate questions exposing a Solver's weaknesses, creating adaptive curricula without human data. However, existing approaches use a single solver's sampling uncertainty as the Challenger's reward. This creates a fundamental bottleneck: as the solver grows confident on the Challenger's question distribution, all sampled answers converge identically, collapsing the reward to zero and starving the Challenger of learning signal. Critically, this single-model reward cannot distinguish genuinely easy questions from those that merely align with one solver's learned biases. We propose a multi-solver disagreement reward using a heterogeneous ensemble varying in model capacity and sampling temperature. A normalized Shannon entropy over the ensemble's per-question plurality answers explicitly rewards questions where solvers produce conflicting solutions---capturing difficulty as inter-model divergence rather than intra-model sampling variance. This richer gradient enables the Challenger to discover questions targeting true capability boundaries, producing a curriculum that forces downstream Solvers to develop robust reasoning strategies generalizing across problem types. Our approach is a drop-in reward function replacement requiring no framework modifications or additional data. Experiments with Qwen3-4B show that Solvers trained on disagreement-Challenger questions achieve +1.34 points average improvement on competition-math benchmarks (MATH-500, AMC, Olympiad), suggesting that multi-solver disagreement provides a complementary and scalable signal for curriculum generation in self-play reasoning systems.

Test-time compute scaling is a primary driver of performance in large reasoning models (LRMs), but extreme inefficiency bounds current approaches, shifting the critical question from \emph{how much} compute to spend, to \emph{where} to allocate it. We formalize test-time reasoning as a constrained compute allocation problem over partial trajectories. Under a fixed hardware budget, existing paradigms fail to actively allocate the compute to the most promising partial progress: traditional parallel sampling treats traces independently and induces severe memory bottlenecks, while subtractive pruning starves hardware and fails to actively and sufficiently shift the output distribution. To overcome this dichotomy, we introduce Gambit, an inference algorithm that executes \emph{thought-level beam search}. By periodically pruning unpromising trajectories and immediately branching from high-quality prefixes, Gambit dynamically concentrates compute onto the most promising reasoning traces via a light-weight scorer probing hidden states while maintaining continuous high hardware utilization. Extensive evaluations across multiple models and benchmarks demonstrate that Gambit strictly dominates existing baselines. Under identical hardware constraints, our method yields up to a +6.7% absolute accuracy gain on HMMT-24 and +3.3% on AIME-25 over pruning baselines, delivers $>2\times$ higher throughput on trace completion, and reduces total token consumption by up to 68.5% relative to standard parallel sampling.

Test-time scaling is often implemented by spending more compute along one axis: sampling more solutions, extending a chain of thought, or applying a stronger evaluator. Under a fixed inference budget, these choices compete. This paper formulates test-time reasoning as a compute-allocation problem in which a system must decide whether the next unit of compute should be spent on generation, verification, or stopping. We introduce CoBa, a compute-balanced routing policy that first obtains a small set of candidates, applies cheap verification broadly, and routes uncertain or high-value candidates to stronger verification. On 3,129 example-generator evaluations spanning MATH-500, AIME 2024/2025, AMC 2023, and procedural symbolic reasoning, CoBa-Routed-Strong reaches 85.13% macro accuracy, statistically matching a self-evaluation weighted-voting proxy at 85.20% while using 49.1% fewer parameter-weighted tokens. It also matches best-of-16 majority voting within 0.01 macro-accuracy points while using 58.9% fewer parameter-weighted tokens; paired tests retain a small best-of-16 edge at substantially higher cost. Paired bootstrap tests show significant gains over single-sample decoding, while the remaining gap to the pool oracle exposes headroom for sharper routing. For local reasoning systems, test-time scaling becomes a question of where the next computation is most valuable.

Transformers provide a powerful architecture for global content-based matching, but reasoning problems may benefit from a stronger inductive bias toward iterative traversal of latent relations. We introduce Graph Machine, an architecture with two explicit edge-based mechanisms: Edge-augmented attention, in which edges modulate attention between nodes, and edge-centric referral, in which nodes exchange addresses to update their edges. Conceptually, this enables the model to dynamically and differentiably construct and revise relational graphs across layers. We study this inductive bias using Sudoku under controlled settings and find that Graph Machine outperforms Transformer baselines, with ablation studies and mechanistic analysis attributing the gains to the edge mechanisms. Surprisingly, we found that the model discovers a compact edge-based construction for Sudoku geometry. Our results support explicit edge mechanisms as a promising architectural design, motivating broader evaluation.

Whether large language models perform genuine algorithmic reasoning or mere pattern completion is hard to test, because most benchmarks lack a ground truth for correct inductive inference. We introduce F-ICL, an in-context-learning benchmark that supplies one exactly. Using the Turing-complete machine F, complement-symmetrised into sF to remove output-polarity bias, we exhaustively enumerate all 1.5 billion programs of length $L\le13$ and compute the Bayes-optimal posterior in closed form under a bounded universal (Levin--Solomonoff) prior; models are scored by how closely their served distributions approach it at matched evidence. Each task is paired with its bitwise complement, on which the optimum scores identically, so an original-twin gap isolates the model's inductive bias. Across 105 serving configurations spanning 37 open models (0.8B--675B) and frontier systems from four laboratories, models answer up to 92% of queries correctly, yet 45 of 46 models yield distributions farther from the optimum than a keystroke reference, and their behaviour is bracketed by low-order prefix statistics fitted only on visible evidence. That reference is itself an algorithmic mixture, induced by a print-only machine with no loops, so the panel's implied measure sits closer to a loop-free mixture than to the loop-bearing optimum, independently of the reference machine. Updating is also non-monotone, which no prior explains: a Bayes-rational solved set can only grow in this realisable, noiseless setting, yet added examples produce $6{,}545$ solved-to-unsolved transitions against $13{,}702$ gains. The gap is not predicted by accuracy (Spearman $ρ=-0.19$, $p=0.21$), does not close with scale or across frontier generations in the serving modes that expose distributions, and is widened by instruction and reasoning post-training. F-ICL is released as an open, reproducible benchmark and toolkit.

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.

Modern reasoning models depend on reasoning data, today sourced from human annotations or distilled from stronger LLMs. However, a rich and largely untapped source of supervision lies in expert systems (e.g., game engines, classical planners, theorem provers), which routinely produce near-optimal actions across diverse domains. But these experts are silent: they commit to an action without writing down the chain of thought (CoT) behind it. Recovering that CoT as natural-language reasoning would distill expert knowledge into a student that generalizes beyond the demonstrated actions. We treat it as a latent variable and study how to recover it from the action alone. Our approach, LeAct (Learning to reason from Actions), optimizes this latent variable: the student samples candidate CoTs for each expert action, and we retain those that measurably improve its own probability of recovering the action. Across imperfect-information games at multiple scales and a simulated robotics benchmark, LeAct reaches the solver's numerical floor on small enumerable games. At larger scale, it is $5\times$ closer to the solver than the strongest expert-iteration baseline. At Flop Hold'em ($\sim 10^9$ infosets), LeAct wins head-to-head by $+60$ mbb/g, and on the robotics probe it is the only training recipe that improves on direct imitation. We present a principled framework and the result: expert systems become a categorically new source of reasoning teachers for foundation models.

When does a weight-tied looped transformer -- one block applied T times -- implement an actual algorithm? We answer with four findings from controlled populations on group word problems. (1) The budget law: free training installs a linear computation frontier, a mechanism that solves v positions per loop, whose speed is priced by the training contract: v ~ n_train/T_train (exponent 0.98 +/- 0.04, R^2=0.99), exactly unity under T=n training. SGD selects a frontier matching the minimum the contract demands; granting more test-time loops than ever trained rescues late positions at fixed input length, yielding a principled halting rule T* = ceil(n / v-hat). (2) Architecture prior, not expressivity, picks the algorithm: standard-depth transformers learn parallel scans on this family; weight tying flips the selection to the serial frontier, even when positional addressing for a log-depth scan is supplied. At matched depth and parameters, untied models extrapolate worst and fail to learn A5 at all. (3) The walls are not where circuit complexity says: NC1-completeness costs nothing (A5 generalizes fully), while group order does (S5's 120x120 operator deadlocks joint learning) -- and an operator-first curriculum dissolves the wall in every seed. (4) Mechanisms are portable, not mandatable: warm-starting across budget contracts transfers the algorithm in every seed, re-pricing its speed, while imposing seriality through the input schedule fails where free training succeeds. These results are invisible to standard instruments, which provably saturate at the fixed points trained loops converge to. We introduce a head instrument, the convergence-time scaling tau(n,i), validate it causally via damage cones whose slope reproduces v, and show in-distribution head measurements predict out-of-distribution fate where tail metrics do not. Results replicate on the public easy-to-hard benchmark.

This paper reports a convergence neither program was looking for. Marcus's The Algebraic Mind named three things any architecture needs -- operations over variables, recursive structure, and individuals distinct from kinds -- showed multilayer perceptrons have none, and left a register-and-treelet implementation as conjecture. Thagard's Brain-Mind ran it from the other end, making binding the mechanism from which the whole of mind is assembled, and circular convolution load-bearing. Marcus leaves his register algebra open; Thagard's is lossy, degrading under the very recursion his own account demands. VaCoAl is a hyperdimensional computing architecture built end-to-end on XOR-and-shift over GF(2) via primitive-polynomial LFSRs; PyVaCoAl is its extended software realization (all results here); the silicon substrate exists as CASRAM. Bind(R,F) = R XOR Shift(F) is exactly reversible and non-commutative: it supplies all three pillars at fixed dimension and removes convolution's depth degradation. Capability: exact reversible binding at O(N) yields compositional generalization with post-hoc auditability, which no lossy or learned substrate offers. Necessity: two independent architecture programs and the dentate gyrus-CA3 circuit require the same algebra -- convergence, not biomimicry. New here: discrimination and failure-tolerance are one. Repair every collision (RR = 1) and the system is bit-identical to a hash dictionary: candidates become indistinguishable and the confidence path-integral collapses; a memory that never fails keeps no record of which routes were hard. Position: we do not surpass large language models but supply the auditable, multi-hop relational reasoning embeddings lack. No consciousness is implemented and no cognitive experiment reported; bit-exactness holds in silicon, approximately under biological noise; speed and power remain unbenchmarked.

Self-refinement often fails to strengthen few-shot inductive reasoning in large language models. Prompting a model to explicitly state its inferred rule does little on its own. What actually matters is a structurally enforced isolation between reasoning stages, so that information can only pass between them as a compressed symbolic state. We introduce \textbf{Hourglass reasoning}, which enforces strict context isolation between reasoning stages. The frozen LLM acts as a meta-constructor, building for each task a symbolic encoder--decoder: an Induction module compresses the support examples into a schema $φ$ (encoder) and a transient scaffold $z$; a Deduction module derives rule $T$ (decoder) from these and discards $z$; an Implementer compiles $(φ, T)$ into artifacts; an error-driven Refiner revises $(φ, T)$ and regenerates artifacts from scratch. Only $(φ, T)$ crosses stage boundaries, so all refinement stays anchored to the rule. We evaluate Hourglass across three benchmarks spanning visual abstraction, hardware synthesis, and textual rule induction, using GPT-5.5 and Gemini 3.1 Pro. On ARC-AGI-2, it raises best-of-5 accuracy by up to 14 points over an iterative-refinement baseline. On ChipBench, it nearly doubles Verilog synthesis accuracy with GPT-5.5, from 31% to 58%. BBEH-Linguini draws on puzzles from the International Linguistics Olympiad, a setting where prior work has shown that explicit verbalization can hurt performance. Hourglass mitigates this tendency, and on Gemini 3.1 Pro, it reverses the effect entirely. Ablations confirm that these gains come from the isolation between stages and the quality of the initial induction, not from prompt wording or the particular symbolic form used. It is how information flows through the reasoning process, rather than the language used to express it, that drives inductive reasoning in frozen LLMs.

Recursive models show promise on reasoning and language tasks, yet their test-time scaling lacks a principled criterion for selecting trajectories or determining recurrent depth. We introduce \textbf{Energy-guided Recursive Model (ERM)}, which uses Hopfield-type memories of valid local and global structures to assign intrinsic energies to candidate trajectories. These energies guide candidate selection and suggest an effective range of recurrent depths, implying that deeper recurrence does not necessarily improve reasoning accuracy. They also enable sampling methods such as parallel tempering to improve exploration. For reasoning tasks, ERM achieves optimal solutions on Sudoku ($98.97\%$), Pencil Puzzle Bench (PPBench, $88.04\%$) and Maze ($99.30\%$), reaching the best accuracy in recursive modeling. On language modeling, ERM reduces RedPajama-V2 perplexity by $1.74\%$ with marginal inference overhead. The results support energy guidance as a practical framework for improving test-time scaling in recursive models.

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.

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.

Compositional generalization, the ability to understand and produce novel combinations of known components, remains a fundamental challenge for modern artificial intelligence. While few benchmarks exist, many focus on linguistic tasks and lack complex, explicit compositional structures. We introduce ClassicLogic, a new benchmark suite designed to evaluate an agent's ability to learn and compose problem-solving strategies. The benchmark consists of four classic logic puzzles: Sudoku, KenKen, Kakuro, and Futoshiki. Its core innovation is a hierarchical, explicit knowledge base for each game, where complex solving strategies are formally defined as compositions of simpler, foundational strategies. This structure allows for fine-grained evaluation of an agent's reasoning capabilities, from learning basic rules to applying multi-step compositional strategies to solve puzzles of increasing, mathematically validated difficulty. The open-source benchmark provides a challenging new testbed for advancing neuro-symbolic and other advanced AI reasoning systems.

High pass rates on established programming benchmarks such as HumanEval and LiveCodeBench do not always show whether a model can reason about algorithms. Many fixed benchmarks eventually become part of the public training ecosystem through released problem statements, editorials, and generated solutions, allowing later models to improve partly by exposure rather than by stronger algorithmic ability. We introduce ALGOBENCH, a framework that automatically builds novel algorithmic problems from known competitive-programming problems through structured constraint-shifting transformations. Each accepted ALGOBENCH variant is traceable to a source problem, but must make the original reference algorithm fail. Beyond pass@$k$, we introduce complexity-aware metrics -- including OPTT, OPTS, TRAPRATE, GAPT, and CONSENS -- to test whether a solution is not only functionally correct but also asymptotically suitable for the generated problem. Experiments across multiple LLMs and prompting strategies show that performance drops sharply on ALGOBENCH variants, retrieval can increase reuse of the old algorithm, and many correct-looking solutions fail to meet the required complexity. Error analysis shows that failures are mainly algorithmic rather than implementation-level, suggesting that ALGOBENCH evaluates adaptation beyond functional correctness.

Designing an algorithm from a natural-language problem statement requires identifying the problem structure, reading constraints, choosing a suitable paradigm, checking correctness, and refining complexity. Existing large language model (LLM) methods often rely on direct generation or generic self-refinement, leaving these steps implicit. We propose AlgoSkill, which models algorithm design as sequential decision-making over a typed library of algorithmic skills, including abstraction, constraint analysis, state design, data-structure selection, proof checking, counterexample construction, and complexity refinement. A learned scheduler proposes skills from the current design state, while a Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) controller explores skill sequences using verification feedback from compilation, testing, stress testing, and complexity analysis. Experiments on competitive programming and combinatorial optimization benchmarks show that AlgoSkill improves over direct LLM generation, chain-of-thought prompting, self-refinement, and MCTS without typed skills. Ablations show that typed skills, verification-based repair, and search-based scheduling each contribute to performance. These results support treating automatic algorithm design as verification-guided skill scheduling rather than one-shot code generation.

Structured reasoning requires making and revising interdependent decisions to reach a globally consistent solution. Existing architectures struggle with this: autoregressive models commit sequentially and cannot revise earlier decisions, while masked diffusion models often require careful decoding schemes to coordinate interdependent predictions. We introduce Flow Reasoning Models (FRMs), a novel framework for structured reasoning that adapts continuous flows over discrete structured outputs with a simple recurrent refinement mechanism. By self-conditioning a flow model on its own past outputs, we turn one-shot denoising into iterative solution refinement. This lets FRMs make and revise decisions in parallel, efficiently coordinating interdependent choices across solutions. Yet conventional self-conditioning becomes unreliable at greater recurrent depth due to exposure bias between one-step training predictions and recursively generated inference states. We address this mismatch with Fixed-Point Forcing (FPF), which trains FRMs on states produced by their own inference dynamics while preserving the standard flow-matching objective. FRMs achieve solve rates of $99.5\%$, $100.0\%$, and $99.9\%$ on Sudoku-Extreme, Zebra, and Maze-Unique, respectively. On Sudoku-Extreme, FRMs achieve higher peak accuracy than the evaluated masked-diffusion and specialized reasoning baselines while remaining highly compute-efficient, matching the next-best method's $98.7\%$ peak solve rate with $44\times$ fewer inference FLOPs.

Small language models offer an efficient alternative to large-scale systems, but their ability to execute structured algorithms over multiple dependent decisions remains poorly understood. We study graph algorithm execution as a closed-loop prediction problem in which a model repeatedly selects the next action from the current graph and algorithmic state. Our evaluation framework covers several classical graph procedures, multiple synthetic graph families, and disjoint training, validation, and test partitions. It assesses both local decision quality and global execution behaviour using step accuracy, exact rollout accuracy, constraint validity, partial solution quality, prefix survival, and intervention-based diagnostics. The results show that adaptation can produce reliable policies for structural procedures such as traversal and coloring, while weighted algorithms remain substantially more sensitive to error accumulation. More broadly, the findings demonstrate that strong next-step prediction does not necessarily translate into reliable autonomous execution and motivate evaluating algorithmic language models through complete closed-loop rollouts rather than isolated decisions.