pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2505.03335 · v3 · submitted 2025-05-06 · 💻 cs.LG · cs.AI· cs.CL

Recognition: 3 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Absolute Zero: Reinforced Self-play Reasoning with Zero Data

Andrew Zhao, Gao Huang, Matthieu Lin, Qingyun Wu, Quentin Xu, Shenzhi Wang, Tong Wu, Yang Yue, Yiran Wu, Zilong Zheng

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 18:19 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LG cs.AIcs.CL
keywords absolute zeroself-play reasoningreinforcement learningzero datacode executormathematical reasoningcoding benchmarksRLVR
0
0 comments X

The pith

A model can achieve state-of-the-art reasoning performance by generating and solving its own tasks using only code execution for verification, without any external data.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper proposes Absolute Zero, a reinforcement learning approach where a model proposes its own reasoning tasks to maximize its learning progress and then solves them. This is done using a code executor that validates the tasks and verifies the answers, providing a unified verifiable reward without needing any human-curated data. The resulting Absolute Zero Reasoner (AZR) self-evolves its abilities and curriculum. It achieves superior results on coding and mathematical reasoning tasks compared to other models trained in zero settings with thousands of human examples. This paradigm aims to address scalability issues in training advanced reasoning models as AI capabilities grow beyond human-provided tasks.

Core claim

The Absolute Zero paradigm enables a single model to learn reasoning by proposing tasks that maximize its own progress and solving them with rewards from a code executor, leading to state-of-the-art performance on coding and math benchmarks without external data.

What carries the argument

The Absolute Zero Reasoner (AZR) that self-proposes code reasoning tasks and uses a code executor for both task validation and answer verification to guide learning.

If this is right

  • AZR outperforms zero-setting models using tens of thousands of human-curated examples on coding and math tasks.
  • The approach works across different model scales and is compatible with various model classes.
  • Self-evolution of the training curriculum improves reasoning ability in an open-ended yet grounded manner.
  • This reduces the need for human supervision in developing reasoning capabilities.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the code executor's feedback is too narrow, the model could optimize for code-specific patterns instead of broad reasoning skills.
  • This self-play method might extend to domains with automatic verifiers, such as formal mathematics or game environments.
  • Scaling the self-proposed task generation could reveal new emergent reasoning abilities not seen in supervised training.

Load-bearing premise

Tasks proposed by the model and verified only by a code executor lead to genuine generalization in reasoning abilities rather than narrow optimization to the executor's signals.

What would settle it

Evaluating AZR on non-code verifiable reasoning tasks, such as those requiring natural language understanding without executable checks, to see if the performance gains hold or disappear.

read the original abstract

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has shown promise in enhancing the reasoning capabilities of large language models by learning directly from outcome-based rewards. Recent RLVR works that operate under the zero setting avoid supervision in labeling the reasoning process, but still depend on manually curated collections of questions and answers for training. The scarcity of high-quality, human-produced examples raises concerns about the long-term scalability of relying on human supervision, a challenge already evident in the domain of language model pretraining. Furthermore, in a hypothetical future where AI surpasses human intelligence, tasks provided by humans may offer limited learning potential for a superintelligent system. To address these concerns, we propose a new RLVR paradigm called Absolute Zero, in which a single model learns to propose tasks that maximize its own learning progress and improves reasoning by solving them, without relying on any external data. Under this paradigm, we introduce the Absolute Zero Reasoner (AZR), a system that self-evolves its training curriculum and reasoning ability by using a code executor to both validate proposed code reasoning tasks and verify answers, serving as an unified source of verifiable reward to guide open-ended yet grounded learning. Despite being trained entirely without external data, AZR achieves overall SOTA performance on coding and mathematical reasoning tasks, outperforming existing zero-setting models that rely on tens of thousands of in-domain human-curated examples. Furthermore, we demonstrate that AZR can be effectively applied across different model scales and is compatible with various model classes.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes the Absolute Zero paradigm for reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR), in which a single model self-proposes reasoning tasks, uses a code executor as the sole source of validation and reward for both task generation and solution verification, and trains entirely without external human-curated data. It introduces the Absolute Zero Reasoner (AZR) that self-evolves its curriculum and claims to achieve overall state-of-the-art performance on coding and mathematical reasoning benchmarks, outperforming prior zero-setting models trained on tens of thousands of human examples. The approach is presented as scalable and applicable across model scales and classes.

Significance. If the central performance claims hold under rigorous controls, the work would be significant for demonstrating scalable, data-free reasoning improvement via self-play and external verifiers. It directly addresses concerns about human supervision bottlenecks in RLVR and offers a potential path toward open-ended curriculum generation. Strengths include the unified use of the code executor for both proposal validation and answer verification, and the explicit focus on zero external data.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract / Experiments] The abstract and central claim assert overall SOTA performance on coding and math reasoning without external data, yet no quantitative benchmark scores, baseline comparisons, or ablation results are provided in the summary text; this makes the performance claim impossible to evaluate and is load-bearing for the generalization argument (see Experiments section and any associated tables).
  2. [§3.2] The reward mechanism relies exclusively on code-executor outcomes for both task validation and answer verification (§3.2); this provides only syntactic/runtime signals and no semantic or proof-validity feedback, raising the risk that self-proposed tasks collapse to executor-friendly problems rather than driving broad reasoning gains (directly relevant to the weakest assumption and skeptic concern on narrow optimization).
  3. [Training procedure] Task proposal is generated by the same model being trained, creating partial circular dependence on the model's own outputs for the training distribution; this must be shown not to limit diversity or produce overfitting to verifiable but shallow tasks (see training loop description and any diversity metrics).
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract would benefit from including at least one concrete benchmark score or comparison to ground the SOTA claim for readers.
  2. [§3] Notation for the unified reward signal from the code executor should be defined more explicitly to avoid ambiguity between task-proposal and solution-verification phases.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and insightful comments. We address each major point below, providing clarifications and indicating revisions where the manuscript is strengthened. The full paper contains the supporting experiments and tables referenced in the comments.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Experiments] The abstract and central claim assert overall SOTA performance on coding and math reasoning without external data, yet no quantitative benchmark scores, baseline comparisons, or ablation results are provided in the summary text; this makes the performance claim impossible to evaluate and is load-bearing for the generalization argument (see Experiments section and any associated tables).

    Authors: We agree that the abstract should be self-contained for immediate evaluation of the central claims. The full manuscript reports detailed results in Section 4 and Tables 1-3, but we have revised the abstract to include specific quantitative scores (e.g., AZR performance on MATH, GSM8K, HumanEval, and MBPP) and direct comparisons to prior zero-setting baselines. This revision makes the SOTA claim and generalization argument directly assessable from the abstract alone. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§3.2] The reward mechanism relies exclusively on code-executor outcomes for both task validation and answer verification (§3.2); this provides only syntactic/runtime signals and no semantic or proof-validity feedback, raising the risk that self-proposed tasks collapse to executor-friendly problems rather than driving broad reasoning gains (directly relevant to the weakest assumption and skeptic concern on narrow optimization).

    Authors: We acknowledge that execution provides syntactic and runtime signals rather than explicit semantic or proof feedback. However, the self-proposal objective (maximizing learning progress) combined with execution verification empirically drives broad gains, as evidenced by strong results on semantic-heavy math benchmarks. In the revision we expand §3.2 with qualitative examples of generated tasks requiring multi-step reasoning and an ablation showing that disabling self-proposal reduces performance on complex problems, indicating the mechanism does not collapse to narrow, executor-friendly tasks. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [Training procedure] Task proposal is generated by the same model being trained, creating partial circular dependence on the model's own outputs for the training distribution; this must be shown not to limit diversity or produce overfitting to verifiable but shallow tasks (see training loop description and any diversity metrics).

    Authors: We have added explicit diversity metrics to the revised manuscript, including task entropy, distribution over reasoning categories, and coverage of complexity levels across training steps. These metrics demonstrate that the curriculum remains diverse and does not converge to shallow tasks. We also include an ablation comparing self-proposal against a fixed external task distribution, showing that the self-generated curriculum improves generalization rather than causing overfitting. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper's derivation proceeds from an external code executor providing independent, non-learned verifiable rewards for both task validation and answer checking. Self-proposed tasks generate the training distribution, but this does not reduce any claimed performance gain to a definitional equivalence or fitted input; benchmark results on external coding and math tasks are measured separately and remain falsifiable. No self-citation chain, ansatz smuggling, or renaming of known results is load-bearing in the central RLVR loop. The zero-data claim is therefore self-contained against the external verifier and benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that a code executor can serve as a complete, unbiased source of verifiable reward for open-ended reasoning tasks. No free parameters are explicitly named in the abstract. No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption A code executor provides reliable, unbiased verification for any reasoning task the model proposes.
    Invoked when the abstract states the executor serves as the unified source of verifiable reward.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5596 in / 1126 out tokens · 27306 ms · 2026-05-13T18:19:00.418908+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 25 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. EVE: Verifiable Self-Evolution of MLLMs via Executable Visual Transformations

    cs.CV 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 8.0

    EVE enables verifiable self-evolution of MLLMs by using a Challenger-Solver architecture to generate dynamic executable visual transformations that produce VQA problems with absolute execution-verified ground truth.

  2. EvoGround: Self-Evolving Video Agents for Video Temporal Grounding

    cs.CV 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A proposer-solver agent pair achieves supervised-level video temporal grounding and fine-grained captioning from 2.5K unlabeled videos via self-reinforcing evolution.

  3. Query-Conditioned Test-Time Self-Training for Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    QueST lets LLMs create query-conditioned problem-solution pairs at inference time and use them for parameter-efficient self-training, outperforming prior test-time baselines on math and science benchmarks.

  4. StepCodeReasoner: Aligning Code Reasoning with Stepwise Execution Traces via Reinforcement Learning

    cs.SE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    StepCodeReasoner aligns code reasoning with verifiable stepwise execution traces via print anchors and bi-level GRPO reinforcement learning, reaching SOTA results on CRUXEval (91.1%) and LiveCodeBench (86.5%) for a 7B model.

  5. MAGE: Multi-Agent Self-Evolution with Co-Evolutionary Knowledge Graphs

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    MAGE uses a four-subgraph co-evolutionary knowledge graph plus dual bandits to externalize and retrieve experience for stable self-evolution of frozen language-model agents, showing gains on nine diverse benchmarks.

  6. Can RL Teach Long-Horizon Reasoning to LLMs? Expressiveness Is Key

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    RL training on more expressive logical tasks follows a steeper power-law scaling with reasoning depth and transfers more efficiently to math and reasoning benchmarks.

  7. Can RL Teach Long-Horizon Reasoning to LLMs? Expressiveness Is Key

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    RL training compute for logical reasoning follows a power law in proof depth whose exponent rises with logic expressiveness, and more expressive training yields larger gains on downstream benchmarks.

  8. SELF-EMO: Emotional Self-Evolution from Recognition to Consistent Expression

    cs.AI 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    SELF-EMO lets LLMs bootstrap better emotion recognition and expression via self-play, data flywheel filtering with smoothed IoU rewards, and SELF-GRPO reinforcement learning, yielding SOTA gains on IEMOCAP, MELD, and ...

  9. Seir\^enes: Adversarial Self-Play with Evolving Distractions for LLM Reasoning

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Seirênes trains LLMs via adversarial self-play to generate and overcome evolving distractions, producing gains of 7-10 points on math reasoning benchmarks and exposing blind spots in larger models.

  10. G-Zero: Self-Play for Open-Ended Generation from Zero Data

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    G-Zero uses the Hint-δ intrinsic reward to drive co-evolution between a Proposer and Generator via GRPO and DPO, providing a theoretical suboptimality guarantee for self-improvement from internal dynamics alone.

  11. Team-Based Self-Play With Dual Adaptive Weighting for Fine-Tuning LLMs

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    TPAW uses teams of current and historical model checkpoints that collaborate and compete, plus adaptive weightings for responses and players, to improve self-supervised LLM alignment and outperform baselines.

  12. CauSim: Scaling Causal Reasoning with Increasingly Complex Causal Simulators

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    CauSim turns scarce causal reasoning labels into scalable supervised data by having LLMs incrementally construct complex executable structural causal models.

  13. SEIF: Self-Evolving Reinforcement Learning for Instruction Following

    cs.CL 2026-05 conditional novelty 6.0

    SEIF creates a self-reinforcing loop in which an LLM alternately generates increasingly difficult instructions and learns to follow them better using reinforcement learning signals from its own judgments.

  14. Experience Sharing in Mutual Reinforcement Learning for Heterogeneous Language Models

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Mutual Reinforcement Learning allows heterogeneous LLMs to exchange experience through mechanisms like Peer Rollout Pooling, Cross-Policy GRPO Advantage Sharing, and Success-Gated Transfer, with outcome-level sharing ...

  15. SPARK: Self-Play with Asymmetric Reward from Knowledge Graphs

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    SPARK constructs unified knowledge graphs from multi-document scientific literature to ground self-play RL with asymmetric roles and verifiable rewards, outperforming flat-corpus baselines especially on longer-hop rea...

  16. Programming with Data: Test-Driven Data Engineering for Self-Improving LLMs from Raw Corpora

    cs.SE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Structured knowledge extracted from corpora enables test-driven data engineering for LLMs by mapping training data to source code, model training to compilation, benchmarking to unit testing, and failures to targeted ...

  17. Scaling Self-Play with Self-Guidance

    cs.LG 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    SGS adds self-guidance to LLM self-play for Lean4 theorem proving, surpassing RL baselines and enabling a 7B model to outperform a 671B model after 200 rounds.

  18. Bootstrapping Post-training Signals for Open-ended Tasks via Rubric-based Self-play on Pre-training Text

    cs.CL 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    POP bootstraps post-training signals for open-ended LLM tasks by synthesizing rubrics during self-play on pretraining corpus, yielding performance gains on Qwen-2.5-7B across healthcare QA, creative writing, and instr...

  19. Evaluation-driven Scaling for Scientific Discovery

    cs.LG 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    SimpleTES scales test-time evaluation in LLMs to discover state-of-the-art solutions on 21 scientific problems across six domains, outperforming frontier models and optimization pipelines with examples like 2x faster ...

  20. HEALing Entropy Collapse: Enhancing Exploration in Few-Shot RLVR via Hybrid-Domain Entropy Dynamics Alignment

    cs.LG 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    HEAL mitigates entropy collapse in few-shot RLVR by selectively adding general-domain data and aligning trajectory-level entropy dynamics, matching full-shot performance with 32 target samples.

  21. MARS$^2$: Scaling Multi-Agent Tree Search via Reinforcement Learning for Code Generation

    cs.AI 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    MARS² integrates multi-agent collaboration with tree-structured search in RL to boost code generation by increasing exploratory diversity and using path-level group advantages for credit assignment.

  22. ZeroCoder: Can LLMs Improve Code Generation Without Ground-Truth Supervision?

    cs.SE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    ZeroCoder co-evolves coder and tester LLMs via self-generated code-test execution feedback to improve code generation up to 21.6% without ground-truth supervision.

  23. Stabilizing Unsupervised Self-Evolution of MLLMs via Continuous Softened Retracing reSampling

    cs.CV 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    CSRS improves MLLM self-evolution stability by using retracing mechanisms and softened continuous rewards instead of majority voting, reaching SOTA on geometric reasoning benchmarks like MathVision.

  24. Vocabulary Dropout for Curriculum Diversity in LLM Co-Evolution

    cs.CL 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Vocabulary dropout prevents diversity collapse in LLM co-evolution by masking proposer logits, yielding average +4.4 point solver gains on mathematical reasoning benchmarks at 8B scale.

  25. Beyond the 80/20 Rule: High-Entropy Minority Tokens Drive Effective Reinforcement Learning for LLM Reasoning

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0

    High-entropy minority tokens drive RLVR gains, so restricting gradients to the top 20% maintains or improves performance over full updates on Qwen3 models, especially larger ones.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages · cited by 24 Pith papers · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Distilling the Knowledge in a Neural Network

    OpenReview.net, 2024. URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=Ffpg52swvg. Guo, D., Yang, D., Zhang, H., Song, J., Wang, P., Zhu, Q., Xu, R., Zhang, R., Ma, S., Bi, X., Zhang, X., Yu, X., Wu, Y., Wu, Z. F., Gou, Z., Shao, Z., Li, Z., Gao, Z., Liu, A., Xue, B., Wang, B., Wu, B., Feng, B., Lu, C., Zhao, C., Deng, C., Ruan, C., Dai, D., Chen, D., Ji, D., Li, E., L...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09422-z 2024

  2. [2]

    DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models

    URLhttps://github.com/rohaquinlop/complexipy. Accessed: 2025-04-06. Loshchilov,I.andHutter,F. Decoupledweightdecayregularization. In7thInternationalConferenceonLearningRepresentations,ICLR 2019, New Orleans, LA, USA, May 6-9, 2019. OpenReview.net, 2019. URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=Bkg6RiCqY7. Morris,J. Therearenonewideasinai... onlynewdatasets. htt...

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.03300 2025

  3. [3]

    Let’s think step by step and output the final answer within \boxed{}

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2504.16084. 21 Absolute Zero: Reinforced Self-play Reasoning with Zero Data Appendix Appendix Contents A Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards. 23 B Implementation Details 23 C More Results 24 C.1 Out-of-Distribution Performance Breakdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 C.2 I...

    work page arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Input:[0]⇒Replacement:[2]⇒sum=2

    work page

  5. [5]

    Input:[1, 2, 3]⇒Replacement:[3,1,0]⇒sum=4

    work page

  6. [6]

    Input:[4, 1]⇒Replacement:[4,3]⇒sum=7

    work page

  7. [7]

    Input:[2, 1, 0]⇒Replacement:[1,3,2]⇒sum=6

    work page

  8. [8]

    Input:[3, 0, 2, 4] ⇒Replacement:[0,2,1,4]⇒sum=7

    work page

  9. [9]

    Input:[1, 1, 1]⇒Replacement:[3,3,3]⇒sum=9

    work page

  10. [10]

    Input:[2, 2, 0, 1] ⇒Replacement:[1,1,2,3]⇒sum=7

    work page

  11. [11]

    Input:[3, 4, 2]⇒Replacement:[0,4,1]⇒sum=5

    work page

  12. [12]

    Input:[0, 1, 2, 3, 4] ⇒Replacement:[2,3,1,0,4]⇒sum=1 0

    work page

  13. [13]

    Input:[1, 2, 3, 0, 4] ⇒Replacement:[3,1,0,2,4]⇒sum=1 0 Thus, the rule is clearly replacing numbers according to the given mapping and then summing the results. Inputs:['[0]', '[1, 2, 3]', '[4, 1]', '[2, 1, 0]', '[3, 0, 2, 4]', '[1, 1, 1]', [2, 2, 0, 1], ’[3, 4, 2]’, ’[0, 1, 2, 3, 4]’, ’[1, 2, 3, 0, 4]’]| Message: Y ou are given a function that takes a lis...

    work page

  14. [20]

    This matches our output

    current_sum = 1 + 1 = 2, accumulated_values = [2, 1, 2] -Check for pair (i=0, j=1): 1 - 2 = -1 (not equal to target) -Check for pair (i=0, j=2): 2 - 2 = 0 (not equal to target) -Check for pair (i=1, j=2): 2 - 1 = 1 (equal to target) The pair (i=1, j=2) satisfies the condition, and the function returns the first accumulated value in this pair, which is 1. ...

    work page

  15. [21]

    Initializewindow_startto 0,max_lengthto 0, and an empty dictionarychar_freqto store the frequency of characters in the current window

    work page

  16. [22]

    Get the current characterend_charat indexwindow_end

    Iterate through the array usingwindow_endas the index: a. Get the current characterend_charat indexwindow_end. b. Ifend_charis not inchar_freq, add it with a frequency of 0. c. Increment the frequency ofend_charby 1

    work page

  17. [23]

    If true, shrink the window from the start: i

    Check if the number of distinct characters inchar_freqis greater thank: a. If true, shrink the window from the start: i. Get the characterstart_charat indexwindow_start. ii. Decrement its frequency by 1. iii. If the frequency becomes 0, remove the character fromchar_freq. iv. Incrementwindow_startby 1

    work page

  18. [24]

    Updatemax_lengthby taking the maximum ofmax_lengthand the current window size (window_end - window_start + 1 ). Now, let’s apply this algorithm step-by-step to the input[1, 2, 1, 2, 3, 2, 1] ,k=2: •window_start = 0,max_length = 0,char_freq = {} •window_end = 0, add1tochar_freq:{1:1}, window size=1 •window_end = 1, add2:{1:1,2:1}, window size=2 •window_end...

    work page

  19. [25]

    - The list is sorted

    **Understand the Message:** - We are given a list of integers. - The list is sorted. - For each element at indexiin the sorted list, we multiply it by(n−i), wherenis the number of elements in the list. - We need to compute the sum of these products

    work page

  20. [26]

    1·(4−1) = 3,2·(4−2) = 4,3·(4−3) = 3,4·(4−4) = 0, Sum:3+4+3+0=1 0 - For the input[4,3,2,1], the sorted form is[1,2,3,4], and the output is 20 (same as above)

    **Analyze the Input/Output Pairs:** - For the input[1,2,3,4], the sorted form is the same, and the output is 20. 1·(4−1) = 3,2·(4−2) = 4,3·(4−3) = 3,4·(4−4) = 0, Sum:3+4+3+0=1 0 - For the input[4,3,2,1], the sorted form is[1,2,3,4], and the output is 20 (same as above). - For the input[3,1,4,2], the sorted form is[1,2,3,4], and the output is 20 (same as a...

    work page

  21. [27]

    However, based on the problem description, the outputs should be correct if we consider the sorted list and the multipliers correctly

    **Re-evaluate the Outputs:** - It seems there might be an error in the provided outputs for some inputs. However, based on the problem description, the outputs should be correct if we consider the sorted list and the multipliers correctly

    work page

  22. [28]

    **Deduce the Function:** - Given the sorted list and the list of multipliers, we can deduce the following function: “‘python def f(a): sorted_a = sorted(a) n = len(sorted_a) result = 0 for i in range(n): result += sorted_a[i] * (n - i) return result ...(shortened)

    work page

  23. [29]

    ### Final Answer (repeat the program above) Figure 24.Example of solving an induction task

    **Verify the Function:** - Let’s verify the function with the provided inputs: - For[1,2,3,4]: - Sorted list:[1,2,3,4] - Multipliers:[3,4,3,0] - Sum:1·3+2·4+3·3+4·0=3+8+9+0=2 0 ...(shortened) The corrected outputs should be: For[1,2,3,4]: 20, For[4,3,2,1]: 20, For[3,1,4,2]: 20, For[1,2,2,3]: 13, For[5]:0 Given the function: deff(a): sorted_a=sorted(a) n=l...

    work page 2022

  24. [30]

    Initialize an empty listresult_pairsto store pairs whose product equalstarget_product

    work page

  25. [31]

    The outer loop iterates over each number, and the inner loop iterates over numbers that come after the current number in the outer loop (ሰđ২ೂ(2, 3)ބ3, 2))b

    Use nested loops to iterate through each pair of numbers innum_list. The outer loop iterates over each number, and the inner loop iterates over numbers that come after the current number in the outer loop (ሰđ২ೂ(2, 3)ބ3, 2))b

    work page

  26. [32]

    For each pair(num_list[i], num_list[j]), check if their product equalstarget_product

    work page

  27. [33]

    If the product equalstarget_product, append the tuple(num_list[i], num_list[j])toresult_pairs

    work page

  28. [34]

    ""Function to check if a string contains given substrings

    After all pairs have been checked, return the listresult_pairs. Let’s explicitly apply this to the provided input[2, 3, 5, 7, 10] , target product10: - Fori=0 (num_list[0] = 2): -j=1, 2 × 3 = 6 (≠10) -j=2, 2 × 5 = 10 (=10), add pair (2, 5) -j=3, 2 × 7 = 14 (≠10) -j=4, 2 × 10 = 20 (≠10) - Fori=1 (num_list[1] = 3): -j=2, 3 × 5 = 15 (≠10) -j=3, 3 × 7 = 21 (≠...

    work page 2024

  29. [37]

    ‘output [[

    **Masking the Board**: - If the board is valid (i.e., ‘g_0(board)‘ returns ‘True‘), the function ‘f‘ proceeds to mask the board. - It creates a copy of the board and then randomly selects 51 positions to mask with ”.”. - The masked board is then returned. Given the output: “‘output [[”5”,”3”,”.”,”.”,”7”,”.”,”.”,”.”,”.”],[”6”,”.”,”.”,”1”,”9”,”5”,”.”,”.”,”....

    work page

  30. [38]

    ‘input [ [

    The board is complete with no ”.”. 2. The board is valid because each row, each column, and each 3x3 subgrid contains the digits 1 through 9 exactly once. 3. The function ‘f‘ will mask 51 random positions. Given the random nature of the masking, we need to ensure that the positions masked match the positions of ”.” in the output. Since the positions are r...

    work page

  31. [39]

    - A board is valid if each row, each column, and each 3x3 subgrid contains the digits 1 through 9 exactly once

    **Input Validation in ‘g_0‘**: - The function ‘g_0‘ checks if the given board is valid. - A board is valid if each row, each column, and each 3x3 subgrid contains the digits 1 through 9 exactly once. - If the board is not valid, ‘g_0‘ returns ‘False‘

    work page

  32. [40]

    If there are, it raises a ‘ValueError‘

    **Input Validation in ‘f‘**: - The function ‘f‘ first checks if there are any ”.” in the board. If there are, it raises a ‘ValueError‘. - This means the input board to ‘f‘ must be a complete board with no ”.”

    work page

  33. [41]

    ‘output [[

    **Masking the Board**: - If the board is valid (i.e., ‘g_0(board)‘ returns ‘True‘), the function ‘f‘ proceeds to mask the board. - It creates a copy of the board and then randomly selects 51 positions to mask with ”.”. - The masked board is then returned. Given the output: “‘output [[”5”,”3”,”.”,”.”,”7”,”.”,”.”,”.”,”.”], [”6”,”.”,”.”,”1”,”9”,”5”,”.”,”.”,”...

    work page

  34. [42]

    ‘input [ [

    The board is complete with no ”.”. 2. The board is valid because each row, each column, and each 3x3 subgrid contains the digits 1 through 9 exactly once. 3. The function ‘f‘ will mask 51 random positions. Given the random nature of the masking, we need to ensure that the positions masked match the positions of ”.” in the output. Since the positions are r...

    work page

  35. [44]

    This doesn’t match our output

    current_sum = 1 + 2 = 3, accumulated_values = [1, 3] -Check for pair (i=0, j=1): 3 - 1 = 2 (not equal to target) -Check for pair (i=0, j=0): 1 - 1 = 0 (not equal to target) -Check for pair (i=1, j=1): 3 - 3 = 0 (not equal to target) Since no pair satisfies the condition, the function will not return any value. This doesn’t match our output. Let’s try anot...

    work page

  36. [45]

    current_sum = 0 + 1 = 1, accumulated_values = [1]

    work page

  37. [46]

    This still doesn’t match our output

    current_sum = 1 + 0 = 1, accumulated_values = [1, 1] -Check for pair (i=0, j=1): 1 - 1 = 0 (not equal to target) -Check for pair (i=0, j=0): 1 - 1 = 0 (not equal to target) -Check for pair (i=1, j=1): 1 - 1 = 0 (not equal to target) ...(shortened) The pair (i=1, j=2) satisfies the condition, and the function returns the first accumulated value in this pai...

    work page

  38. [47]

    current_sum = 0 + 2 = 2, accumulated_values = [2]

    work page

  39. [48]

    current_sum = 2 - 1 = 1, accumulated_values = [2, 1]

    work page

  40. [49]

    This matches our output

    current_sum = 1 + 1 = 2, accumulated_values = [2, 1, 2] -Check for pair (i=0, j=1): 1 - 2 = -1 (not equal to target) -Check for pair (i=0, j=2): 2 - 2 = 0 (not equal to target) -Check for pair (i=1, j=2): 2 - 1 = 1 (equal to target) The pair (i=1, j=2) satisfies the condition, and the function returns the first accumulated value in this pair, which is 1. ...

    work page

  41. [50]

    ‘x‘ and ‘y‘ are both integers

    work page

  42. [51]

    ‘x‘ and ‘y‘ satisfy ‘1 < x < y‘ and ‘x + y <= 100‘

    work page

  43. [52]

    Let’s analyze the function ‘g_0‘ step by step to understand what it does:

    The final candidates after applying the conditions in ‘g_0‘ are exactly one pair, and that pair is ‘(x, y)‘. Let’s analyze the function ‘g_0‘ step by step to understand what it does:

    work page

  44. [53]

    ‘pairs = g_3()‘ generates all pairs ‘(x, y)‘ such that ‘2 <= x < y <= 100‘ and ‘x + y <= 100‘

    work page

  45. [54]

    ‘sum_dict = g_2(pairs)‘ creates a dictionary where the keys are the sums of the pairs and the values are lists of pairs that add up to that sum

    work page

  46. [55]

    ‘prod_dict = g_1(pairs)‘ creates a dictionary where the keys are the products of the pairs and the values are lists of pairs that have that product

    work page

  47. [56]

    ‘allowed_sums = [s for s, candidate_pairs in sum_dict.items() if all(len(prod_dict[x * y]) > 1 for (x, y) in candidate_pairs)]‘ filters out the sums ‘s‘ for which all pairs ‘(x, y)‘ that add up to ‘s‘ have more than one pair with the same product

    work page

  48. [57]

    ‘candidates_after_S = [pair for pair in pairs if pair[0] + pair[1] in allowed_sums]‘ filters out the pairs whose sum is in ‘allowed_sums‘

    work page

  49. [58]

    ‘new_prod_dict = g_1(candidates_after_S)‘ creates a new product dictionary using the filtered pairs

    work page

  50. [59]

    ‘unique_products = prod: pair_list for prod, pair_list in new_prod_dict.items() if len(pair_list) == 1‘ creates a dictionary of products that have exactly one pair

    work page

  51. [60]

    ‘final_candidates = []‘ initializes a list of final candidates

    work page

  52. [61]

    If so, this pair is added to ‘final_candidates‘

    The loop ‘for s in allowed_sums:‘ iterates over each sum in ‘allowed_sums‘ and checks if there is exactly one pair ‘(x, y)‘ such that ‘x + y = s‘ and ‘x * y‘ is in ‘unique_products‘. If so, this pair is added to ‘final_candidates‘

    work page

  53. [62]

    Given that the output is ‘True‘, it means that there is exactly one pair ‘(x, y)‘ that satisfies all the conditions

    The function returns ‘sorted(set(final_candidates))‘, which should be a list containing exactly one pair if the conditions are met. Given that the output is ‘True‘, it means that there is exactly one pair ‘(x, y)‘ that satisfies all the conditions. Let’s identify this pair. To do this, we need to understand the mathematical conditions and constraints:

    work page

  54. [63]

    ‘1 < x < y‘ and ‘x + y <= 100‘

    work page

  55. [64]

    The pair ‘(x, y)‘ must be the only pair whose sum is in ‘allowed_sums‘ and whose product is unique among the pairs with the same sum. By analyzing the constraints and the nature of the problem, we can deduce that the pair ‘(x, y)‘ must be such that the sum ‘x + y‘ is unique in the sense that all pairs adding up to this sum have products that are not uniqu...

    work page

  56. [65]

    ‘1 < 4 < 13‘ and ‘4 + 13 = 17 <= 100‘

    work page

  57. [66]

    note-taking

    We need to check the ‘allowed_sums‘ and the uniqueness of the product ‘4 * 13 = 52‘. By running the code or logical deduction, we can confirm that ‘(4, 13)‘ is the only pair that satisfies all the conditions. Therefore, the input that produced the output ‘True‘ is: “‘input (4, 13) “‘ Figure 41.Solve Abduction Task Example.A more detailed version of the ex...

    work page 2016