aiqbench analysis
This research reveals a critical flaw in Lattice Deduction Transformers (LDT), where "first-pass poisoning" causes the model to commit prematurely on Sudoku grids, effectively turning an iterative solver into a one-shot predictor that fails before search can begin. The study demonstrates that while architectural enhancements like learned branching do not fix this fundamental calibration issue, specific interventions such as digit-permutation augmentation and test-time symmetry unions successfully restore accuracy without retraining. These findings highlight the importance of distinguishing between genuine reasoning capacity and mere predictive amortization in neural solvers for constraint satisfaction problems.
Anatomy of a Sound Neural Reasoner: One-Shot Amortization, First-Pass Poisoning, and Search Inertness in Clue-Rich Completion
arXiv:2607.19635v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Neural solvers are built to deduce, branch, and revise intermediate states. The Lattice Deduction Transformer (LDT) appears to do exactly that. In clue-rich Sudoku, it does not: one forward pass commits essentially the entire grid (every blank cell on standard 6x6, 94-96% on augmented 9x9), turning the iterative solver into a one-shot predictor wrapped in an exact verifier. All hard-slice failures are decided before search begins, when the first pass confidently deletes a value required by the true solution. We call this first-pass poisoning. Adding learned branching, MRV, backtracking, value exclusion, and shared nogoods (CoLT) does not change which Sudoku instances are solved; it cuts repeated invalid derivations 1,497-fold. At the frozen training budget, constraint-graph attention alone matches full-CoLT accuracy, while positional tables recover only under substantially longer training, indicating an optimization and sample-efficiency advantage rather than an absolute capacity difference. The diagnosis predicts two effective interventions. Digit-permutation augmentation raises 9x9 accuracy from below 1% to 96.5 +/- 0.3 across three training seeds on a symmetry-disjoint split. Test-time union over symmetry-transformed passes raises all three hard-slice checkpoints from 72.8-78.9% to 100% without retraining. On from-scratch graph coloring, one-shot behavior disappears and search changes accuracy. In clue-rich completion, LDT-like systems are one-shot amortized predictors rather than learned search procedures: accuracy is determined by calibration and symmetry, while search primarily removes computational waste.
Abstract:Neural solvers are built to deduce, branch, and revise intermediate states. The Lattice Deduction Transformer (LDT) appears to do exactly that. In clue-rich Sudoku, it does not: one forward pass commits essentially the entire grid (every blank cell on standard 6x6, 94-96% on augmented 9x9), turning the iterative solver into a one-shot predictor wrapped in an exact verifier. All hard-slice failures are decided before search begins, when the first pass confidently deletes a value required by the true solution. We call this first-pass poisoning. Adding learned branching, MRV, backtracking, value exclusion, and shared nogoods (CoLT) does not change which Sudoku instances are solved; it cuts repeated invalid derivations 1,497-fold. At the frozen training budget, constraint-graph attention alone matches full-CoLT accuracy, while positional tables recover only under substantially longer training, indicating an optimization and sample-efficiency advantage rather than an absolute capacity difference. The diagnosis predicts two effective interventions. Digit-permutation augmentation raises 9x9 accuracy from below 1% to 96.5 +/- 0.3 across three training seeds on a symmetry-disjoint split. Test-time union over symmetry-transformed passes raises all three hard-slice checkpoints from 72.8-78.9% to 100% without retraining. On from-scratch graph coloring, one-shot behavior disappears and search changes accuracy. In clue-rich completion, LDT-like systems are one-shot amortized predictors rather than learned search procedures: accuracy is determined by calibration and symmetry, while search primarily removes computational waste.
Machine Learning (cs.LG); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2607.19635 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2607.19635v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.19635 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 318 words
Related coverage

Runway’s WorldPrompt and the Engineering of Real-Time Worlds
Latent Space · Sep 25, 2026
Links #5: 2026/07
LessWrong · Jul 31, 2026

Presentation: Running AI at the Edge: Running Real Workloads Directly in the Browser
InfoQ · Aug 31, 2026

Underwriting Superintelligence: Backing Agents you can Sue — Rune Kvist, AIUC
Latent Space · Sep 16, 2026