Yuyao Wang
Publications
What Papers Don't Tell You: Recovering Tacit Knowledge for Automated Paper Reproduction
Automated paper reproduction -- generating executable code from academic papers -- is bottlenecked not by information retrieval but by the tacit knowledge that papers inevitably leave implicit. We formalize this challenge as the progressive recovery of three types of tacit knowledge -- relational, somatic, and collective -- and propose \method, a graph-based agent framework with a dedicated mechanism for each: node-level relation-aware aggregation recovers relational knowledge by analyzing implementation-unit-level reuse and adaptation relationships between the target paper and its citation neighbors; execution-feedback refinement recovers somatic knowledge through iterative debugging driven by runtime signals; and graph-level knowledge induction distills collective knowledge from clusters of papers sharing similar implementations. On an extended ReproduceBench spanning 3 domains, 10 tasks, and 40 recent papers, \method{} achieves an average performance gap of 10.04\% against official implementations, improving over the strongest baseline by 24.68\%. The code will be publicly released upon acceptance; the repository link will be provided in the final version.
AlgBench: To What Extent Do Large Reasoning Models Understand Algorithms?
Reasoning ability has become a central focus in the advancement of Large Reasoning Models (LRMs). Although notable progress has been achieved on several reasoning benchmarks such as MATH500 and LiveCodeBench, existing benchmarks for algorithmic reasoning remain limited, failing to answer a critical question: Do LRMs truly master algorithmic reasoning? To answer this question, we propose AlgBench, an expert-curated benchmark that evaluates LRMs under an algorithm-centric paradigm. AlgBench consists of over 3,000 original problems spanning 27 algorithms, constructed by ACM algorithmic experts and organized under a comprehensive taxonomy, including Euclidean-structured, non-Euclidean-structured, non-optimized, local-optimized, global-optimized, and heuristic-optimized categories. Empirical evaluations on leading LRMs (e.g., Gemini-3-Pro, DeepSeek-v3.2-Speciale and GPT-o3) reveal substantial performance heterogeneity: while models perform well on non-optimized tasks (up to 92%), accuracy drops sharply to around 49% on globally optimized algorithms such as dynamic programming. Further analysis uncovers \textbf{strategic over-shifts}, wherein models prematurely abandon correct algorithmic designs due to necessary low-entropy tokens. These findings expose fundamental limitations of problem-centric reinforcement learning and highlight the necessity of an algorithm-centric training paradigm for robust algorithmic reasoning.