We consider the algorithmic problem of finding the optimal weights and biases for a two-layer fully connected neural network to fit a given set of data points, also known as empirical risk minimization. We show that the problem is $\exists\mathbb{R}$-complete. This complexity class can be defined as the set of algorithmic problems that are polynomial-time equivalent to finding real roots of a multivariate polynomial with integer coefficients. Furthermore, we show that arbitrary algebraic numbers are required as weights to be able to train some instances to optimality, even if all data points are rational. Our result already applies to fully connected instances with two inputs, two outputs, and one hidden layer of ReLU neurons. Thereby, we strengthen a result by Abrahamsen, Kleist and Miltzow [NeurIPS 2021]. A consequence of this is that a combinatorial search algorithm like the one by Arora, Basu, Mianjy and Mukherjee [ICLR 2018] is impossible for networks with more than one output dimension, unless $\text{NP} = \exists\mathbb{R}$.

Large language models (LLMs) make remarkable progress in reasoning tasks. Among different reasoning modes, inductive reasoning, due to its better alignment with human learning, attracts increasing interest. However, research on inductive reasoning faces certain challenges. First, existing inductive data mostly focuses on superficial regularities while lacking more complex internal patterns. Second, current works merely prompt LLMs or finetune on simple prompt-response pairs, but do not provide precise thinking processes nor implement difficulty control. Unlike previous work, we address these challenges by introducing \textit{CodeSeq}, a synthetic post-training dataset built from number sequences. We package number sequences into algorithmic problems to discover their general terms, defining a general term generation (GTG) task correspondingly. Our pipeline generates supervised finetuning data by reflecting on failed test cases and incorporating iterative corrections, thereby teaching LLMs to learn autonomous case generation and self-checking. Additionally, it leverages reinforcement learning with a novel Case-Synergy Solvability Scaling Reward based on both solvability, estimated from the problem pass rate, and the success rate of self-directed case generation, enabling models to learn more effectively from both successes and failures. Experimental results show that the models trained with \textit{CodeSeq} improve on various reasoning tasks and can preserve the models' OOD performance.

Large language models make remarkable progress in reasoning capabilities. Existing works focus mainly on deductive reasoning tasks (e.g., code and math), while another type of reasoning mode that better aligns with human learning, inductive reasoning, is not well studied. We attribute the reason to the fact that obtaining high-quality process supervision data is challenging for inductive reasoning. Towards this end, we novelly employ number sequences as the source of inductive reasoning data. We package sequences into algorithmic problems to find the general term of each sequence through a code solution. In this way, we can verify whether the code solution holds for any term in the current sequence, and inject case-based supervision signals by using code unit tests. We build a sequence synthetic data pipeline and form a training dataset CodeSeq. Experimental results show that the models tuned with CodeSeq improve on both code and comprehensive reasoning benchmarks.

There is growing excitement about the potential of Language Models (LMs) to accelerate scientific discovery. Falsifying hypotheses is key to scientific progress, as it allows claims to be iteratively refined over time. This process requires significant researcher effort, reasoning, and ingenuity. Yet current benchmarks for LMs predominantly assess their ability to generate solutions rather than challenge them. We advocate for developing benchmarks that evaluate this inverse capability - creating counterexamples for subtly incorrect solutions. To demonstrate this approach, we start with the domain of algorithmic problem solving, where counterexamples can be evaluated automatically using code execution. Specifically, we introduce REFUTE, a dynamically updating benchmark that includes recent problems and incorrect submissions from programming competitions, where human experts successfully identified counterexamples. Our analysis finds that the best reasoning agents, even OpenAI o3-mini (high) with code execution feedback, can create counterexamples for only <9% of incorrect solutions in REFUTE, even though ratings indicate its ability to solve up to 48% of these problems from scratch. We hope our work spurs progress in evaluating and enhancing LMs' ability to falsify incorrect solutions - a capability that is crucial for both accelerating research and making models self-improve through reliable reflective reasoning.

We consider the algorithmic problem of finding the optimal weights and biases for a two-layer fully connected neural network to fit a given set of data points, also known as empirical risk minimization. This complexity class can be defined as the set of algorithmic problems that are polynomial-time equivalent to finding real roots of a multivariate polynomial with integer coefficients. Furthermore, we show that arbitrary algebraic numbers are required as weights to be able to train some instances to optimality, even if all data points are rational. Our result already applies to fully connected instances with two inputs, two outputs, and one hidden layer of ReLU neurons. Thereby, we strengthen a result by Abrahamsen, Kleist and Miltzow [NeurIPS 2021].

Automatic program synthesis is a long-lasting dream in software engineering. Recently, a promising Deep Learning (DL) based solution, called Copilot, has been proposed by OpenAI and Microsoft as an industrial product. Although some studies evaluate the correctness of Copilot solutions and report its issues, more empirical evaluations are necessary to understand how developers can benefit from it effectively. In this paper, we study the capabilities of Copilot in two different programming tasks: (i) generating (and reproducing) correct and efficient solutions for fundamental algorithmic problems, and (ii) comparing Copilot's proposed solutions with those of human programmers on a set of programming tasks. For the former, we assess the performance and functionality of Copilot in solving selected fundamental problems in computer science, like sorting and implementing data structures. In the latter, a dataset of programming problems with human-provided solutions is used. The results show that Copilot is capable of providing solutions for almost all fundamental algorithmic problems, however, some solutions are buggy and non-reproducible. Moreover, Copilot has some difficulties in combining multiple methods to generate a solution. Comparing Copilot to humans, our results show that the correct ratio of humans' solutions is greater than Copilot's suggestions, while the buggy solutions generated by Copilot require less effort to be repaired.

This course is about the fundamental concepts of algorithmic problems focusing on recursion, backtracking, dynamic programming and divide and conquer approaches. As far as I am concerned, these techniques are very important nowadays, algorithms can be used (and have several applications) in several fields from software engineering to investment banking or R&D. In each section we will talk about the theoretical background for all of these algorithms then we are going to implement these problems together from scratch in Python. Thanks for joining the course, let's get started!

This course is about the fundamental concepts of algorithmic problems focusing on recursion, backtracking, dynamic programming and divide and conquer approaches. As far as I am concerned, these techniques are very important nowadays, algorithms can be used (and have several applications) in several fields from software engineering to investment banking or R&D. In each section we will talk about the theoretical background for all of these algorithms then we are going to implement these problems together from scratch in Python. Thanks for joining the course, let's get started!

Description This course is about the fundamental concepts of algorithmic problems, focusing on recursion, backtracking and dynamic programming. As far as I am concerned these techniques are very important nowadays, algorithms can be used (and have several applications) in several fields from software engineering to investment banking or R&D. In each section we will talk about the theoretical background for all of these algorithms then we are going to implement these problems one by one. The first chapter is about recursion. Why is it crucial to know about recursion as a computer scientist?

A team of researchers at the University of Luxembourg and the University of Ontario Institute of Technology have recently proposed a new approach to design trajectories for energy-efficient unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)-enabled wireless communications. Their paper, prepublished on arXiv, specifically focuses on cases in which an UAV acts as a flying base station (BS) to serve ground users (GSs) within some predetermined latency constraints. "Our goal is to design the UAV trajectory to minimize the total energy consumption while satisfying the RT requirement and energy budget, which is accomplished via jointly optimizing the trajectory and UAV's velocities along subsequent hops," the researchers wrote in their paper. Optimizing a UAV's trajectory and its velocities together can be somewhat difficult to achieve. To do so, the researchers developed an approach that carries out two consecutive steps. Their approach entails the use of two distinct algorithms, a heuristic search and a dynamic programming (DP) algorithm.