Good Papers

Neural Proposals, Symbolic Guarantees: Neuro-Symbolic Graph Generative Modeling

A neuro-symbolic framework pairs neural graph proposals with symbolic SMT solvers for hard-constraint satisfaction, achieving over 95% in-distribution and 64, 86% zero-shot rule compliance on the MolSAT benchmark.

Chuqin Geng, Li Zhang, Mark Zhang, Zhaoyue(Rebecca) Wang, Haolin Ye, Xujie Si

Published 2026Sydney Poster Session 4 · Wed, Dec 9, 5:00 PM–8:00 PM local time · Hall 1-4arXiv ↗OpenReview ↗

86%
OverallMust read
?
OverallMust readVote to see the scoreThe exact score shows once you've voted, so every vote is your own call. The first half of each home page shelf shows its scores.
Readers
–

Only vote on papers you've read. Sign in with GitHub to vote.

AI panel14/20reviewers recommend it
lenient 5/5
medium 7/10
strict 2/5
AI panel?Vote to see what the 20 AI reviewers said

Abstract

While deep generative models excel at capturing graph data distributions, they struggle to satisfy complex, hard constraints. In unconstrained settings, these models typically produce valid topologies; yet imposing strict compositional rules, like those in drug discovery, creates an out-of-distribution (OOD) setting where purely neural methods frequently fail. Because these neural approaches rely on soft conditioning and post-hoc filtering on such tasks, they cannot provide the formal guarantees needed for high-stakes domains. To address this, we introduce Neuro-Symbolic Graph Generative Modeling (NSGGM), a framework built on the principle of Neural Proposals, Symbolic Guarantees. NSGGM decouples generation: an autoregressive model proposes structural scaffolds, and a Satisfiability Modulo Theories (SMT) solver handles the final discrete assembly of the proposed substructures. Empirically, NSGGM is competitive with state-of-the-art methods on unconstrained tasks. To evaluate logical-constraint satisfaction inspired by real drug discovery workflows, we introduce MolSAT, a benchmark for hard compositional rules. On MolSAT, purely neural baselines completely fail OOD (0% satisfaction with zero training support), while NSGGM achieves >95% satisfaction in-distribution and 64-86% with zero training support.