How well do AI systems perform in algorithm engineering for hard optimization problems in domains such as package-delivery routing, crew scheduling, factory production planning, and power-grid balancing? We introduce ALE-Bench, a new benchmark for evaluating AI systems on score-based algorithmic programming contests. Drawing on real tasks from the AtCoder Heuristic Contests, ALE-Bench presents optimization problems that are computationally hard and admit no known exact solution. Unlike short-duration, pass/fail coding benchmarks, ALE-Bench encourages iterative solution refinement over long time horizons. Our software framework supports interactive agent architectures that leverage test-run feedback and visualizations. Our evaluation of frontier LLMs revealed that while they demonstrate high performance on specific problems, a notable gap remains compared to humans in terms of consistency across problems and long-horizon problem-solving capabilities. This highlights the need for this benchmark to foster future AI advancements.

Chain-of-Thought reasoning has emerged as a powerful approach for solving complex mathematical and logical problems. However, it can often veer off track through incorrect or unsubstantiated inferences. Formal mathematical reasoning, which can be checked with a formal verifier, is one approach to addressing this issue. However, currently LLMs are simply not good enough to solve complex problems in a formal way, and even just formalizing an informal problem statement can be challenging. Motivated by this fact, in this work we consider the problem of learning reliable verifiers for sequential reasoning, including natural language Chain-of-Thought reasoning. That is, given a problem statement and step-by-step solution in natural language, the aim of the verifier is to output [Yes] if the reasoning steps in the solution are all valid, and [No] otherwise. In this work we give a formal PAC-learning framework for studying this problem. We propose and analyze several natural verification goals, at different levels of strength, in this framework. We provide sample complexity upper-bounds for learning verifiers satisfying these goals, as well as lower-bound and impossibility results for learning other natural verification objectives without additional assumptions.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown strong performance in data-rich domains such as programming, but their reliability in engineering tasks remains limited. Circuit analysis -- requiring multimodal understanding and precise mathematical reasoning -- highlights these challenges. Although Gemini 2.5 Pro improves diagram interpretation and analog-circuit reasoning, it still struggles to consistently produce correct solutions when given both text and circuit diagrams. At the same time, engineering education needs scalable AI tools capable of generating accurate solutions for tasks such as automated homework feedback and question-answering. This paper presents an enhanced, end-to-end circuit problem solver built on Gemini 2.5 Pro. We first benchmark Gemini on a representative set of undergraduate circuit problems and identify two major failure modes: 1) circuit-recognition hallucinations, particularly incorrect source polarity detection, and 2) reasoning-process hallucinations, such as incorrect current directions. To address recognition errors, we integrate a fine-tuned YOLO detector and OpenCV processing to isolate voltage and current sources, enabling Gemini to re-identify source polarities from cropped images with near-perfect accuracy. To reduce reasoning errors, we introduce an ngspice-based verification loop in which Gemini generates a .cir file, ngspice simulates the circuit, and discrepancies trigger iterative regeneration with optional human-in-the-loop review. Across 83 problems, the proposed pipeline achieves a 97.59% success rate (81 correct solutions), substantially outperforming Gemini 2.5 Pro's original 79.52% accuracy. This system extends LLM capabilities for multimodal engineering problem-solving and supports the creation of high-quality educational datasets and AI-powered instructional tools.

With the increasing reliance on LLMs as research agents, distinguishing between LLM and human-generated ideas has become crucial for understanding the cognitive nuances of LLMs' research capabilities. While detecting LLM-generated text has been extensively studied, distinguishing human vs LLM-generated scientific idea remains an unexplored area. In this work, we systematically evaluate the ability of state-of-the-art (SOTA) machine learning models to differentiate between human and LLM-generated ideas, particularly after successive paraphrasing stages. Our findings highlight the challenges SOTA models face in source attribution, with detection performance declining by an average of 25.4\% after five consecutive paraphrasing stages. Additionally, we demonstrate that incorporating the research problem as contextual information improves detection performance by up to 2.97%. Notably, our analysis reveals that detection algorithms struggle significantly when ideas are paraphrased into a simplified, non-expert style, contributing the most to the erosion of distinguishable LLM signatures.

The creative potential of computers has intrigued researchers for decades. Since the emergence of Generative AI (Gen AI), computer creativity has found many new dimensions and applications. As Gen AI permeates mainstream discourse and usage, researchers are delving into how it can improve and complement what humans do. Creative potential is a highly relevant notion to design practice and research, especially in the initial stages of ideation and conceptualisation. There is scope to improve creative potential in these stages, especially using machine intelligence. We propose a structured ideation session involving inspirational stimuli and utilise Gen AI in delivering this structure to designers through ALIA: Analogical LLM Ideation Agent, a tool for small-group ideation scenarios. The tool is developed by enabling speech based interactions with a Large Language Model (LLM) for inference generation. Inspiration is drawn from the synectic ideation method and the dialectics philosophy to design the optimal stimuli in group ideation. The tool is tested in design ideation sessions to compare the output of the AI-assisted ideation sessions to that of tradi tional ideation sessions. Preliminary findings showcase that participants have rated their ideas better when assisted by ALIA and respond favourably to speech-based interactions.

The ability to compute reward-optimal policies for given and known finite Markov decision processes (MDPs) underpins a variety of applications across planning, controller synthesis, and verification. However, we often want policies (1) to be robust, i.e., they perform well on perturbations of the MDP and (2) to satisfy additional structural constraints regarding, e.g., their representation or implementation cost. Computing such robust and constrained policies is indeed computationally more challenging. This paper contributes the first approach to effectively compute robust policies subject to arbitrary structural constraints using a flexible and efficient framework. We achieve flexibility by allowing to express our constraints in a first-order theory over a set of MDPs, while the root for our efficiency lies in the tight integration of satisfi-ability solvers to handle the combinatorial nature of the problem and probabilistic model checking algorithms to handle the analysis of MDPs. Experiments on a few hundred benchmarks demonstrate the feasibility for constrained and robust policy synthesis and the competitiveness with state-of-the-art methods for various fragments of the problem.

We introduce SWE-Bench Pro, a substantially more challenging benchmark that builds upon the best practices of SWE-BENCH [25], but is explicitly designed to capture realistic, complex, enterprise-level problems beyond the scope of SWE-BENCH. SWE-BENCH PRO contains 1,865 problems sourced from a diverse set of 41 actively maintained repositories spanning business applications, B2B services, and developer tools. The benchmark is partitioned into a public set with open access to problems sourced from 11 repositories, a held-out set of 12 repositories and a commercial set of 18 proprietary repositories where we have formal partnership agreements with early-stage startups. Problems in the held-out and the commercial set are not publicly accessible, but we release results on the commercial set. Our benchmark features long-horizon tasks that may require hours to days for a professional software engineer to complete, often involving patches across multiple files and substantial code modifications. All tasks are human-verified and augmented with sufficient context to ensure resolvability. To better understand these limitations, we cluster the failure modes observed in the collected agent trajectories for a clearer characterization of the error patterns exhibited by current models. Overall, SWE-BENCH PRO provides a contamination-resistant testbed that more faithfully captures the complexity and diversity of real-world software development, advancing the pursuit of truly autonomous software engineering agents at a professional level.

The evolution of mathematics has been guided in part by interestingness. From researchers choosing which problems to tackle next, to students deciding which ones to engage with, people's choices are often guided by judgments about how interesting or challenging problems are likely to be. As AI systems, such as LLMs, increasingly participate in mathematics with people -- whether for advanced research or education -- it becomes important to understand how well their judgments align with human ones. Our work examines this alignment through two empirical studies of human and LLM assessment of mathematical interestingness and difficulty, spanning a range of mathematical experience. We study two groups: participants from a crowdsourcing platform and International Math Olympiad competitors. We show that while many LLMs appear to broadly agree with human notions of interestingness, they mostly do not capture the distribution observed in human judgments. Moreover, most LLMs only somewhat align with why humans find certain math problems interesting, showing weak correlation with human-selected interestingness rationales. Together, our findings highlight both the promises and limitations of current LLMs in capturing human interestingness judgments for mathematical AI thought partnerships.

Competitive programming benchmarks are widely used in scenarios such as programming contests and large language model assessments. However, the growing presence of duplicate or highly similar problems raises concerns not only about competition fairness, but also about the validity of competitive programming as a benchmark for model evaluation. In this paper, we propose a new problem, similar question retrieval, to tackle this issue. Due to the lack of both data and models, solving this problem is challenging. To this end, we introduce CPRet, a retrieval-oriented benchmark suite for competitive programming, covering four retrieval tasks: two code-centric (i.e., Text-to-Code, Code-to-Code) and two newly proposed problem-centric tasks (i.e., Problem-to-Duplicate, Simplified-to-Full) built from a combination of automatically crawled problem-solution data and manually curated annotations. Our contribution includes both high-quality training data and temporally separated test sets for reliable evaluation. Besides, we further develop two task-specialized retrievers based on this dataset: CPRetriever-Code, trained with a novel Group-InfoNCE loss for problem-code alignment, and CPRetriever-Prob, fine-tuned for identifying problem-level similarity. Both models achieve strong results and are open-sourced for local use. Finally, we analyze LiveCodeBench and find that high-similarity problems inflate model pass rates and reduce differentiation, underscoring the need for similarity-aware evaluation in future benchmarks. Github: https://github.com/coldchair/CPRet Online Demo: https://www.cpret.online/

Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate strong performance on mathematical problems when prompted with Chain-of-Thought (CoT), yet it remains unclear whether this success stems from search, rote procedures, or rule-consistent reasoning. To address this, we propose modeling CoT as a certain rule-based stochastic process over directed acyclic graphs (DAGs), where nodes represent intermediate derivation states and edges encode rule applications. Within this framework, we introduce logical closeness, a metric that quantifies how well a model's CoT trajectory (i.e., the LLM's final output) adheres to the DAG structure, providing evaluation beyond classical PASS@k metrics. Building on this, we introduce the DAG-MATH CoT format and construct a benchmark that guides LLMs to generate CoT trajectories in this format, thereby enabling the evaluation of their reasoning ability under our framework. Across standard mathematical reasoning datasets, our analysis uncovers statistically significant differences in reasoning fidelity among representative LLM families-even when PASS@k is comparable-highlighting gaps between final-answer accuracy and rule-consistent derivation. Our framework provides a balance between free-form CoT and formal proofs systems, offering actionable diagnostics for LLMs reasoning evaluation. Our benchmark and code are available at: https://github.com/YuanheZ/DAG-MATH-Formatted-CoT.