Papers › Guaranteed Conformance of Neurosymbolic Models to Natural Constraints
Guaranteed Conformance of Neurosymbolic Models to Natural Constraints
Kaustubh Sridhar, Souradeep Dutta, James Weimer, Insup Lee
Deep neural networks have emerged as the workhorse for a large section of robotics and control applications, especially as models for dynamical systems. Such data-driven models are in turn used for designing and verifying autonomous systems. They are particularly useful in modeling medical systems where data can be leveraged to individualize treatment. In safety-critical applications, it is important that the data-driven model is conformant to established knowledge from the natural sciences. Such knowledge is often available or can often be distilled into a (possibly black-box) model. For instance, an F1 racing car should conform to Newton's laws (which are encoded within a unicycle model). In this light, we consider the following problem - given a model M and a state transition dataset, we wish to best approximate the system model while being a bounded distance away from M. We propose a method to guarantee this conformance. Our first step is to distill the dataset into a few representative samples called memories, using the idea of a growing neural gas. Next, using these memories we partition the state space into disjoint subsets and compute bounds that should be respected by the neural network in each subset. This serves as a symbolic wrapper for guaranteed conformance. We argue theoretically that this only leads to a bounded increase in approximation error; which can be controlled by increasing the number of memories. We experimentally show that on three case studies (Car Model, Drones, and Artificial Pancreas), our constrained neurosymbolic models conform to specified models (each encoding various constraints) with order-of-magnitude improvements compared to the augmented Lagrangian and vanilla training methods. Our code can be found at: https://github.com/kaustubhsridhar/Constrained_Models
In Syntology View this paper on Syntology: its repositories, every harvested function with whether it ran, its licence and the call to fetch it.
Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2212.01346")
Code
Syntology Ran 2 of 2 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 0 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 1 ran · our draft was wrong; 1 ran with no contract checked.
By repository: official repository: 2 samples from 1 repository, 2 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
2 samples harvested; 2 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 0 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-25; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 2 of the 2 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from kaustubhsridhar/constrained_models. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
ad754734c8ecd412 · report
b17061be23212e1d · report
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections