Maintainable and general software allows developers to build robust applications efficiently, yet achieving these qualities often requires refactoring specialized solutions into reusable components. This challenge becomes particularly relevant as code agents become used to solve isolated one-off programming problems. We investigate code agents' capacity to refactor code in ways that support growth and reusability. We first investigate what makes a good refactoring, finding via simulation results and a human study that Minimum Description Length best correlates with preferable refactorings. We then present both a benchmark and a method for refactoring: MiniCode, a benchmark where multiple files must be refactored into a shared library, and Librarian, a sample-and-rerank method for generating reusable libraries. We compare Librarian to state-of-the-art library generation methods, and study it on real-world code bases.

The pace of evolution of Large Language Models (LLMs) necessitates new approaches for rigorous and comprehensive evaluation. Traditional human annotation is increasingly impracticable due to the complexities and costs involved in generating high-quality, challenging problems. In this work, we introduce CHASE, a unified framework to synthetically generate challenging problems using LLMs without human involvement. For a given task, our approach builds a hard problem in a bottom-up manner from simpler components. Moreover, our framework decomposes the generation process into independently verifiable sub-tasks, thereby ensuring a high level of quality and correctness. We implement CHASE to create evaluation benchmarks across three diverse domains: (1) document-based question answering, (2) repository-level code completion, and (3) math reasoning. The performance of state-of-the-art LLMs on these synthetic benchmarks lies in the range of 40-60% accuracy, thereby demonstrating the effectiveness of our framework at generating challenging problems. We publicly release our benchmarks and code.

Recent studies have combined Large Language Models (LLMs) with Knowledge Graphs (KGs) to enhance reasoning, improving inference accuracy without additional training while mitigating hallucination. However, existing frameworks are often rigid, struggling to adapt to KG or task changes. They also rely heavily on powerful LLMs for reliable (i.e., trustworthy) reasoning. To address this, We introduce R2-KG, a plug-and-play, dual-agent framework that separates reasoning into two roles: an Operator (a low-capacity LLM) that gathers evidence and a Supervisor (a high-capacity LLM) that makes final judgments. This design is cost-efficient for LLM inference while still maintaining strong reasoning accuracy. Additionally, R2-KG employs an Abstention mechanism, generating answers only when sufficient evidence is collected from KG, which significantly enhances reliability. Experiments across multiple KG-based reasoning tasks show that R2-KG consistently outperforms baselines in both accuracy and reliability, regardless of the inherent capability of LLMs used as the Operator. Further experiments reveal that the single-agent version of R2-KG, equipped with a strict self-consistency strategy, achieves significantly higher-than-baseline reliability while reducing inference cost. However, it also leads to a higher abstention rate in complex KGs. Our findings establish R2-KG as a flexible and cost-effective solution for KG-based reasoning. It reduces reliance on high-capacity LLMs while ensuring trustworthy inference.

What does it take to be a great scientist or domain expert? Beyond technical skills and mastery of domain-specific tools--where AI already excels--there is an elusive quality that distinguishes leading human experts: actual intelligence, as manifested by the ability to innovatively synthesize knowledge, while at the same time think critically in the sense of separating correct from incorrect statements and acknowledging the boundaries of knowledge. As a result, great scientists and experts advance humanity by solving novel problems. This paper introduces Artificial Expert Intelligence (AEI) as a new paradigm that combines current AI's knowledge and skills with the intelligence characteristic of top human experts. We propose a concrete, constructive definition of AEI which provides a blueprint for building AEI systems.

Prompting techniques such as chain-of-thought have established themselves as a popular vehicle for improving the outputs of large language models (LLMs). For code generation, however, their exact mechanics and efficacy are under-explored. We thus investigate the effects of a wide range of prompting strategies with a focus on automatic re-prompting over multiple turns and computational requirements. After systematically decomposing reasoning, instruction, and execution feedback prompts, we conduct an extensive grid search on the competitive programming benchmarks CodeContests and TACO for multiple LLM families and sizes (Llama 3.0 and 3.1, 8B, 70B, 405B, and GPT-4o). Our study reveals strategies that consistently improve performance across all models with small and large sampling budgets. We then show how finetuning with such an optimal configuration allows models to internalize the induced reasoning process and obtain improvements in performance and scalability for multi-turn code generation.

Conceptual reasoning, the ability to reason in abstract and high-level perspectives, is key to generalization in human cognition. However, limited study has been done on large language models' capability to perform conceptual reasoning. In this work, we bridge this gap and propose a novel conceptualization framework that forces models to perform conceptual reasoning on abstract questions and generate solutions in a verifiable symbolic space. Using this framework as an analytical tool, we show that existing large language models fall short on conceptual reasoning, dropping 9% to 28% on various benchmarks compared to direct inference methods. We then discuss how models can improve since high-level abstract reasoning is key to unbiased and generalizable decision-making. We propose two techniques to add trustworthy induction signals by generating familiar questions with similar underlying reasoning paths and asking models to perform self-refinement. Experiments show that our proposed techniques improve models' conceptual reasoning performance by 8% to 11%, achieving a more robust reasoning system that relies less on inductive biases.

LLMs have become the go-to choice for code generation tasks, with an exponential increase in the training, development, and usage of LLMs specifically for code generation. To evaluate the ability of LLMs on code, both academic and industry practitioners rely on popular handcrafted benchmarks. However, prior benchmarks contain only a very limited set of problems, both in quantity and variety. Further, due to popularity and age, many benchmarks are prone to data leakage where example solutions can be readily found on the web and thus potentially in training data. Such limitations inevitably lead us to inquire: Is the leaderboard performance on existing benchmarks reliable and comprehensive enough to measure the program synthesis ability of LLMs? To address this, we introduce EvoEval -- a program synthesis benchmark suite created by evolving existing benchmarks into different targeted domains for a comprehensive evaluation of LLM coding abilities. Our study on 51 LLMs shows that compared to the high performance obtained on standard benchmarks like HumanEval, there is a significant drop in performance (on average 39.4%) when using EvoEval. Additionally, the decrease in performance can range from 19.6% to 47.7%, leading to drastic ranking changes amongst LLMs and showing potential overfitting of existing benchmarks. Furthermore, we showcase various insights, including the brittleness of instruction-following models when encountering rewording or subtle changes as well as the importance of learning problem composition and decomposition. EvoEval not only provides comprehensive benchmarks, but can be used to further evolve arbitrary problems to keep up with advances and the ever-changing landscape of LLMs for code. We have open-sourced our benchmarks, tools, and complete LLM generations at https://github.com/evo-eval/evoeval

While large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being used for program synthesis, they lack the global view needed to develop useful abstractions; they generally predict programs one at a time, often repeating the same functionality. Generating redundant code from scratch is both inefficient and error-prone. To address this, we propose Refactoring for Generalizable Abstraction Learning (ReGAL), a gradient-free method for learning a library of reusable functions via code refactorization, i.e. restructuring code without changing its execution output. ReGAL learns from a small set of existing programs, iteratively verifying and refining its abstractions via execution. We find that the shared function libraries discovered by ReGAL make programs easier to predict across diverse domains. On three datasets (LOGO graphics generation, Date reasoning, and TextCraft, a Minecraft-based text game), both open-source and proprietary LLMs improve in accuracy when predicting programs with ReGAL functions. For CodeLlama-13B, ReGAL results in absolute accuracy increases of 11.5% on graphics, 26.1% on date understanding, and 8.1% on TextCraft, outperforming GPT-3.5 in two of three domains. Our analysis reveals ReGAL's abstractions encapsulate frequently-used subroutines as well as environment dynamics.

We attempt to solve the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus (ARC) Challenge using Large Language Models (LLMs) as a system of multiple expert agents. Using the flexibility of LLMs to be prompted to do various novel tasks using zero-shot, few-shot, context-grounded prompting, we explore the feasibility of using LLMs to solve the ARC Challenge. We firstly convert the input image into multiple suitable text-based abstraction spaces. We then utilise the associative power of LLMs to derive the input-output relationship and map this to actions in the form of a working program, similar to Voyager / Ghost in the MineCraft. In addition, we use iterative environmental feedback in order to guide LLMs to solve the task. Our proposed approach achieves 50 solves out of 111 training set problems (45%) with just three abstraction spaces - grid, object and pixel - and we believe that with more abstraction spaces and learnable actions, we will be able to solve more.

Working set size estimation (WSS) is of great significance to improve the efficiency of program executing and memory arrangement in modern operating systems. Previous work proposed several methods to estimate WSS, including self-balloning, Zballoning and so on. However, these methods which are based on virtual machine usually cause a large overhead. Thus, using those methods to estimate WSS is impractical. In this paper, we propose a novel framework to efficiently estimate WSS with eBPF (extended Berkeley Packet Filter), a cutting-edge technology which monitors and filters data by being attached to the kernel. With an eBPF program pinned into the kernel, we get the times of page fault and other information of memory allocation. Moreover, we collect WSS via vanilla tool to train a predictive model to complete estimation work with LightGBM, a useful tool which performs well on generating decision trees over continuous value. The experimental results illustrate that our framework can estimate WSS precisely with 98.5\% reduction in overhead compared to traditional methods.