In many practical applications it is important to build symmetries into neural network architectures. Consider the important case of permutation symmetry on point clouds consisting of $n$ points in $d$ dimensions. In this case the network learns a function on a set of $n$ points in $\mathbb{R}^d$, and a natural paradigm for constructing invariant networks is Janossy pooling, which generalizes the popular Deep Sets architecture. We study the universality of this approach, in particular the important question of how large the embedding dimension must be to guarantee universality of this architecture. Specifically, using a novel technique, we prove new lower bounds on the required size of this embedding dimension. For Deep Sets, this gives the correct minimal dimension up to a constant factor for all $d > 1$. For $k$-ary Janossy pooling, we prove the first non-trivial lower bound on the required embedding dimension when $k > 1$.

Many causal discovery algorithms, including the celebrated FCI algorithm, output a Partial Ancestral Graph (PAG). PAGs serve as an abstract graphical representation of the underlying causal structure, modeled by directed acyclic graphs with latent and selection variables. This paper develops a characterization of the set of extended-type conditional independence relations that are invariant across all causal models represented by a PAG. This theory allows us to formulate a general measure-theoretic version of Pearl's causal calculus and a sound and complete identification algorithm for PAGs under selection bias. Our results also apply when PAGs are learned by certain algorithms that integrate observational data with experimental data and incorporate background knowledge.

In this section, we provide further elaboration on this fine-tuning method.

Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning 2021

While neurons are the basic units of deep neural networks, it is still unclear what they learn and if their knowledge is aligned with that of humans. Compositional explanations aim to answer this question by describing the spatial alignment between neuron activations and concepts through logical rules. These logical descriptions are typically computed via a search over all possible concept combinations. Since computing the spatial alignment over the entire state space is computationally infeasible, the literature commonly adopts beam search to restrict the space. However, beam search cannot provide any theoretical guarantees of optimality, and it remains unclear how close current explanations are to the true optimum. In this theoretical paper, we address this gap by introducing the first framework for computing guaranteed optimal compositional explanations. Specifically, we propose: (i) a decomposition that identifies the factors influencing the spatial alignment, (ii) a heuristic to estimate the alignment at any stage of the search, and (iii) the first algorithm that can compute optimal compositional explanations within a feasible time. Using this framework, we analyze the differences between optimal and non-optimal explanations in the most popular settings for compositional explanations, the computer vision domain and Convolutional Neural Networks. In these settings, we demonstrate that 10-40 percent of explanations obtained with beam search are suboptimal when overlapping concepts are involved. Finally, we evaluate a beam-search variant guided by our proposed decomposition and heuristic, showing that it matches or improves runtime over prior methods while offering greater flexibility in hyperparameters and computational resources.

The scarcity of high-quality, logically sound data is a critical bottleneck for advancing the mathematical reasoning of Large Language Models (LLMs). Our work confronts this challenge by turning decades of automated theorem proving research into a scalable data engine. Rather than relying on error-prone LLMs or complex proof-assistant syntax like Lean and Isabelle, our framework leverages E-prover's saturation capabilities on the vast TPTP axiom library to derive a massive, guaranteed-valid corpus of theorems. Our pipeline is principled and simple: saturate axioms, filter for "interesting" theorems, and generate tasks. With no LLMs in the loop, we eliminate factual errors by construction. This purely symbolic data is then transformed into three difficulty-controlled challenges: entailment verification, premise selection, and proof reconstruction. Our zero-shot experiments on frontier models reveal a clear weakness: performance collapses on tasks requiring deep, structural reasoning. Our framework provides both the diagnostic tool to measure this gap and a scalable source of symbolic training data to address it. We make the code and data publicly available. https://github.com/sileod/reasoning_core https://hf.co/datasets/reasoning-core/rc1