Tim Woydt

Tim Woydt, Paul-David Zuercher

Critical sequential decisions are rarely single-timescale: a strategic decision causally shapes the context in which every subsequent tactical choice is made; standard bandit and reinforcement-learning theory does not capture this causal coupling between timescales. We formalise the problem class as Nested Contextual Causal Bandits (NCCBs), a hierarchical SCM where each level's action sets the next level's context distribution, and propose Nested Causal Thompson Sampling (NCTS), which draws one mechanism-factorised belief per episode and acts recursively under it. Our main theoretical result is a causal PAC-Bayesian excess-risk bound that certifies any candidate deployment policy from historic data alone, off-policy and anytime, answering the deployment question: can we trust this agent here, and at what risk? Experiments on a hierarchical SCM show that, against a matched RFF-GP joint regression on the same function class, the factorised SCM-mechanism posterior transfers significantly better zero-shot under exogenous distribution shifts, the recursive meta-to-inner commit significantly dominates the joint-commit alternative in distribution, and the certificate significantly contracts as offline data accumulates. Combining these results, we establish progressive certified handover, a safe-deployment method: each timescale flips from a legacy controller to NCTS when gains can be certified, independently of the others.

Antonia Wüst, Tim Woydt, Lukas Helff et al.

Recently, newly developed Vision-Language Models (VLMs), such as OpenAI's o1, have emerged, seemingly demonstrating advanced reasoning capabilities across text and image modalities. However, the depth of these advances in language-guided perception and abstract reasoning remains underexplored, and it is unclear whether these models can truly live up to their ambitious promises. To assess the progress and identify shortcomings, we enter the wonderland of Bongard problems, a set of classic visual reasoning puzzles that require human-like abilities of pattern recognition and abstract reasoning. With our extensive evaluation setup, we show that while VLMs occasionally succeed in identifying discriminative concepts and solving some of the problems, they frequently falter. Surprisingly, even elementary concepts that may seem trivial to humans, such as simple spirals, pose significant challenges. Moreover, when explicitly asked to recognize ground truth concepts, they continue to falter, suggesting not only a lack of understanding of these elementary visual concepts but also an inability to generalize to unseen concepts. We compare the results of VLMs to human performance and observe that a significant gap remains between human visual reasoning capabilities and machine cognition.

Tim Woydt, Moritz Willig, Antonia Wüst et al.

Strong meta-learning capabilities for systematic compositionality are emerging as an important skill for navigating the complex and changing tasks of today's world. However, in presenting models for robust adaptation to novel environments, it is important to refrain from making unsupported claims about the performance of meta-learning systems that ultimately do not stand up to scrutiny. While Fodor and Pylyshyn famously posited that neural networks inherently lack this capacity as they are unable to model compositional representations or structure-sensitive operations, and thus are not a viable model of the human mind, Lake and Baroni recently presented meta-learning as a pathway to compositionality. In this position paper, we critically revisit this claim and highlight limitations in the proposed meta-learning framework for compositionality. Our analysis shows that modern neural meta-learning systems can only perform such tasks, if at all, under a very narrow and restricted definition of a meta-learning setup. We therefore claim that `Fodor and Pylyshyn's legacy' persists, and to date, there is no human-like systematic compositionality learned in neural networks.

Lukas Helff, Ahmad Omar, Felix Friedrich et al.

We introduce SLR, an end-to-end framework for systematic evaluation and training of Large Language Models (LLMs) via Scalable Logical Reasoning. Given a user's task specification, SLR automatically synthesizes (i) an instruction prompt for an inductive reasoning task, (ii) a validation program, executable on model outputs to provide verifiable rewards, and (iii) the latent ground-truth rule. This process is fully automated, scalable, requires no human annotations, and offers precise control over task difficulty. Using SLR, we create SLR-Bench, a benchmark comprising 19k prompts organized into 20 curriculum levels that progressively increase in relational, arithmetic, and recursive complexity. Large-scale evaluation reveals that contemporary LLMs readily produce syntactically valid rules, yet often fail at correct logical inference. Recent reasoning LLMs demonstrate improved performance but incur very high test-time computation, with costs exceeding $300 for just 1,000 prompts. Finally, curriculum learning via SLR doubles Llama-3-8B accuracy on SLR-Bench, achieving parity with Gemini-Flash-Thinking at a fraction of computational cost. Moreover, these reasoning capabilities generalize to a wide range of established benchmarks, underscoring the effectiveness of SLR for downstream reasoning.