High pass rates on established programming benchmarks such as HumanEval and LiveCodeBench do not always show whether a model can reason about algorithms. Many fixed benchmarks eventually become part of the public training ecosystem through released problem statements, editorials, and generated solutions, allowing later models to improve partly by exposure rather than by stronger algorithmic ability. We introduce ALGOBENCH, a framework that automatically builds novel algorithmic problems from known competitive-programming problems through structured constraint-shifting transformations. Each accepted ALGOBENCH variant is traceable to a source problem, but must make the original reference algorithm fail. Beyond pass@$k$, we introduce complexity-aware metrics -- including OPTT, OPTS, TRAPRATE, GAPT, and CONSENS -- to test whether a solution is not only functionally correct but also asymptotically suitable for the generated problem. Experiments across multiple LLMs and prompting strategies show that performance drops sharply on ALGOBENCH variants, retrieval can increase reuse of the old algorithm, and many correct-looking solutions fail to meet the required complexity. Error analysis shows that failures are mainly algorithmic rather than implementation-level, suggesting that ALGOBENCH evaluates adaptation beyond functional correctness.
Long-horizon language agents increasingly maintain executable world models in the form of planning graphs, where tool calls, validators, memory updates, recovery branches, and final answers are connected by typed dependencies. When a rollout fails, repairing the most visible error can leave the underlying error-amplification path intact, while replaying the full graph is expensive and difficult for long-context models to use reliably. We study world-model correction: selecting a compact subgraph of a failed planning graph whose repair stabilizes subsequent rollouts. We first instantiate a strong family of engineering correctors, including pointwise error scans, TopK and window selection, local graph expansion, cascade repair, and full-context LLM repair. We then propose WM-SAR, a spectral subgraph repair method that estimates node-edge amplification, greedily grows a connected repair region by marginal residual-spectral relief, and sends only this region to an LLM for root-cause repair. Theoretically, we connect residual spectral radius to rollout error and planning regret, motivating repair as stabilization rather than attribution alone. Across synthetic calling-tree graphs, benchmark-inspired agent topologies, and cross-model LLM repair experiments, WM-SAR achieves stronger long-horizon stabilization and root-cause recovery under compact token budgets, matching much larger repair contexts while exposing the LLM to a cleaner causal subgraph.
Grounded Iterative Language Planning (GILP), which trains only a small parameterized backbone and combines it with API-based agent reasoning, and a consistency gate asks for revision when the two disagree are compared.
Experiments on competitive programming and combinatorial optimization benchmarks show that AlgoSkill improves over direct LLM generation, chain-of-thought prompting, self-refinement, and MCTS without typed skills, which support treating automatic algorithm design as verification-guided skill scheduling rather than one-shot code generation.
Xinyuan Song, Z. Cai, Liang Zhao· arXiv.org· 1 citation