Kasper Engelen, Sebastian Junges, Guillermo A. Pérez +1cs.AI cs.LO
Robust Markov decision processes optimize one policy against a set of plausible transition functions. This can be conservative when the unknown dynamics are fixed and become partially identifiable after deployment. We study adaptive policy portfolios: finite sets of memoryless randomized policies synthesized offline and paired with a lightweight online selector. Robust regret is a natural measure of portfolio quality: for each plausible environment, it measures the loss of the best portfolio member relative to the policy that would have been optimal had that environment been known. Related regret objectives were studied by Ghavamzadeh et al. (2016) with an emphasis on approximations and relaxations for safe policy improvement. We give a complexity-theoretic account of portfolio certification and synthesis. Certifying a given portfolio is $\forall\mathbb{R}$-complete already for deterministic portfolios in acyclic (s,a)-rectangular RMDPs. Synthesizing a portfolio of unary-bounded size is $\exists\forall\mathbb{R}$-complete for general rational polytopes, even with fixed discount and acyclic dynamics. The single-policy case is already hard, both combinatorially and algebraically. Finally, we present an offline portfolio construction that is amenable to runtime specialization.
Reasoning shortcuts are solutions of a neurosymbolic system's rules that produce correct predictions through unintended concepts. A recent framework of Takemura, Inoue, and Nishino analyzes them through an automorphism group of value relabelings and asks, as its central open question, when rules pin concepts down. We first show that the framework's key definition, one shared permutation applied at every position, does not apply as stated to any of the four heterogeneous benchmarks it was evaluated on, and that the most direct embedding, padding domains to a common size, produces confident false pathology: 90.91% of solution pairs reported unexplained on CLE4EVR, where every well-defined member of the hierarchy we introduce reports 0%, and the padded verdict's content rotates with configuration-file ordering. Re-measuring eleven rule families under fifteen pre-specified predictions (thirteen confirmed), unexplained-pair rates span 0% to 99.9999% and track provable structure: six theorems give sufficient conditions for transitivity and its failure, including a Free Slot Lemma certifying Kandinsky's pathology from syntax alone. For circuit-given rules, deciding symmetry-inertness of a coordinate is coNP-complete; nontrivial-automorphism existence is coNP-hard under randomized reductions, lies in $Σ_2^p$, is not $Σ_2^p$-complete unless PH collapses, and on monotone circuits is coNP-complete outright. In the Boolean case transitivity is classified exactly: automorphisms explain everything iff the solution set is an affine coset. Weakly supervised models place all 94 observed shortcuts at the one level the componentwise theory flags and none at the 48 it certifies transitive; twelve typed-ambiguous levels produce none, separating what symmetry permits from what optimization selects, and a dual-head control replicates the geography. All numbers trace to released artifacts.
When a student must learn concepts connected by prerequisite dependencies, when does the order of instruction matter, and what does it cost to find the best one? We study instructional sequencing as a stochastic shortest-path problem in which attempting a concept succeeds with a state-dependent probability and failure leaves the learner state unchanged. We first prove that this stochasticity can be eliminated exactly: the problem collapses to a deterministic shortest-path problem on the lattice of prerequisite order ideals, preserving optimal values and actions. The collapse removes stochastic complexity but not combinatorial complexity: optimal sequencing remains NP-hard -- via reduction from feedback arc set in tournaments -- even with no prerequisite edges, unit costs, uniform binary nonnegative transfer, and success probabilities at least $1/2$. Hardness is not uniform: when realizable transfer preferences remain jointly acyclic with the prerequisites, any topological order of the residual joint graph is optimal, and fixed prerequisite width yields polynomial-time exact dynamic programming. A computable diagnostic, $mΔ$, bounds the value of sequencing before optimization. On 70,893 interactions from an introductory CS course, the diagnostic certifies a doubly easy regime -- little value to optimize and little space to search -- while constructed transfer instances realize the challenging regime, where myopic sequencing suffers large regret yet exact A* with a consistent heuristic expands only linearly many states on that family.
Marcelo Arenas, Pablo Barceló, Diego Bustamante +3cs.AI
The XAI community has studied a wide range of queries and scores for explaining predictions of ML models. From a data management perspective, this proliferation of explanation notions calls for declarative query languages in which such notions can be specified, combined, and analyzed uniformly. In this paper, we develop such a framework for Boolean models. We first revisit FOIL, an interpretability query language for black-box models, and show that it has two fundamental limitations: it cannot express central optimality-based explanation queries, and its evaluation problem over decision trees is hard for every level of the polynomial hierarchy. We then introduce ExplAIner, a query language based on FOIL with an extended vocabulary and a layered structure. We show that ExplAIner can express a broad family of explanation notions, including abductive, contrastive, feature-based, and distance-based queries. We also prove that the evaluation problem for each query in ExplAIner belongs to the Boolean hierarchy over every class of Boolean models for which some basic predicates can be evaluated in polynomial time. In particular, that property holds for deterministic and decomposable Boolean circuits. Finally, we introduce Opt-FOIL, an optimization-oriented fragment of ExplAIner for computing explanations that are minimal with respect to strict partial orders, and prove that its evaluation problem is in $\mathrm{FP}^{\mathrm{NP}}$ under the same tractability assumptions. These complexity results have a direct algorithmic consequence: a fixed ExplAIner query can be evaluated with a fixed number of calls to a SAT solver, while a notion of explanation specified in Opt-FOIL can be computed with a polynomial number of such calls. This is particularly relevant in formal XAI, where SAT solvers have been successfully used to compute explanations for several classes of ML models.
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.
Michał Dereziński, Xiaoyu Dongcs.LG cs.AI math.NA math.OC stat.ML
In 1937, Stefan Kaczmarz proposed a simple algorithm for solving systems of linear equations. This algorithm turned out to be the earliest known example of stochastic gradient descent, a ubiquitous computing paradigm that drives the training of modern AI models such as ChatGPT and Gemini. Now, those AI models have joined forces to discover the worst-case complexity of the Kaczmarz algorithm. This paper tells the story of how it happened.
Rita-Nathalia Assaf, Tom Davot, Frédéric Lardeux +1cs.AI
In this paper, we introduce position graphs, a graph-based reasoning framework based on the formalization of position spaces. This framework utilizes two strict partial orders, representing horizontal and vertical alignment and precedence, to model the relative positions of discrete tokens. Unlike general qualitative spatial calculi, position graphs are constrained by a chain condition and compatibility requirements that focus on rows and columns. We provide a comprehensive theoretical analysis of this representation, beginning with a characterization of graph consistency. Conditions to ensure the consistency of position graphs are established. Furthermore, we investigate the computational complexity of structural pattern discovery, modeled as the induced subgraph isomorphism problem. We demonstrate that this problem remains NP-complete even within the restricted class of position graphs. While initially motivated by document processing, this work focuses on the underlying mathematical properties and algebraic consistency of position-based constraints, providing a formal logical layer that is independent of specific data extraction techniques.
Ontology-mediated query answering is concerned with the problem of answering queries over knowledge bases consisting of a database instance and an ontology. While most work in the area focuses on conjunctive queries (CQs), navigational queries have gained increasing attention. In this paper, we investigate the complexity of answering two-way (conjunctive) regular path queries ((C)RPQs) over knowledge bases whose ontology is given by a set of guarded existential rules. We first consider the subclass of linear existential rules and show that (C)RPQ answering is NL-complete in data complexity, which matches the data complexity of answering RPQs over plain graph databases (i.e., without an ontology). In combined complexity, both tasks are ExpTime-complete in the general case, but RPQ and CRPQ answering drop to PTime-complete and PSpace-complete respectively if there is a bound on predicate arity. For guarded rules, we provide a non-trivial reduction to the linear case, which allows us to show that the complexity of (C)RPQ answering is the same as for CQs, namely 2ExpTime-complete in combined complexity (ExpTime-complete in the bounded-arity case) and PTime-complete in data complexity.
Nicholas Leisegang, Thomas Meyer, Sebastian Rudolphcs.AI cs.LO
In this paper, we integrate the defeasible logic of Kraus, Lehmann and Magidor (KLM) with the standpoint logic framework of Gómez Álvarez and Rudolph. This is done with the goal of formally expressing knowledge taking into account multiple (possibly contradicting) viewpoints, which in turn may hold defeasible beliefs. In doing so, we utilise Defeasible Restricted Standpoint Logics (DRSL), introduced by Leisegang et al. Our work expands on previous work by providing a foundational representation result for DRSL semantics and systematically lifting several well-known entailment relations from the propositional case to the standpoint-enhanced setting. In particular, we characterise the semantics for DRSL through a set of KLM-style postulates adapted for the standpoints case. We furthermore provide a means to lift preferential entailment, and the class of entailment relations based on single ranking functions from the purely propositional to the standpoint-enhanced context, including rational and lexicographic closure. We show this can be done equivalently through semantic and algorithmic means. Furthermore, we show that, for each considered form of entailment, the complexity class of entailment checking does not change when moving from propositional KLM to DRSL.