Shiven Sinha

Ameya Prabhu, Shiven Sinha, Ponnurangam Kumaraguru et al.

Continual learning has primarily focused on the issue of catastrophic forgetting and the associated stability-plasticity tradeoffs. However, little attention has been paid to the efficacy of continually learned representations, as representations are learned alongside classifiers throughout the learning process. Our primary contribution is empirically demonstrating that existing online continually trained deep networks produce inferior representations compared to a simple pre-defined random transforms. Our approach projects raw pixels using a fixed random transform, approximating an RBF-Kernel initialized before any data is seen. We then train a simple linear classifier on top without storing any exemplars, processing one sample at a time in an online continual learning setting. This method, called RanDumb, significantly outperforms state-of-the-art continually learned representations across all standard online continual learning benchmarks. Our study reveals the significant limitations of representation learning, particularly in low-exemplar and online continual learning scenarios. Extending our investigation to popular exemplar-free scenarios with pretrained models, we find that training only a linear classifier on top of pretrained representations surpasses most continual fine-tuning and prompt-tuning strategies. Overall, our investigation challenges the prevailing assumptions about effective representation learning in online continual learning. Our code is available at://github.com/drimpossible/RanDumb.

Shiven Sinha, Ameya Prabhu, Ponnurangam Kumaraguru et al.

Proving geometric theorems constitutes a hallmark of visual reasoning combining both intuitive and logical skills. Therefore, automated theorem proving of Olympiad-level geometry problems is considered a notable milestone in human-level automated reasoning. The introduction of AlphaGeometry, a neuro-symbolic model trained with 100 million synthetic samples, marked a major breakthrough. It solved 25 of 30 International Mathematical Olympiad (IMO) problems whereas the reported baseline based on Wu's method solved only ten. In this note, we revisit the IMO-AG-30 Challenge introduced with AlphaGeometry, and find that Wu's method is surprisingly strong. Wu's method alone can solve 15 problems, and some of them are not solved by any of the other methods. This leads to two key findings: (i) Combining Wu's method with the classic synthetic methods of deductive databases and angle, ratio, and distance chasing solves 21 out of 30 methods by just using a CPU-only laptop with a time limit of 5 minutes per problem. Essentially, this classic method solves just 4 problems less than AlphaGeometry and establishes the first fully symbolic baseline strong enough to rival the performance of an IMO silver medalist. (ii) Wu's method even solves 2 of the 5 problems that AlphaGeometry failed to solve. Thus, by combining AlphaGeometry with Wu's method we set a new state-of-the-art for automated theorem proving on IMO-AG-30, solving 27 out of 30 problems, the first AI method which outperforms an IMO gold medalist.

Shiven Sinha, Shashwat Goel, Ponnurangam Kumaraguru et al.

There is growing excitement about the potential of Language Models (LMs) to accelerate scientific discovery. Falsifying hypotheses is key to scientific progress, as it allows claims to be iteratively refined over time. This process requires significant researcher effort, reasoning, and ingenuity. Yet current benchmarks for LMs predominantly assess their ability to generate solutions rather than challenge them. We advocate for developing benchmarks that evaluate this inverse capability - creating counterexamples for subtly incorrect solutions. To demonstrate this approach, we start with the domain of algorithmic problem solving, where counterexamples can be evaluated automatically using code execution. Specifically, we introduce REFUTE, a dynamically updating benchmark that includes recent problems and incorrect submissions from programming competitions, where human experts successfully identified counterexamples. Our analysis finds that the best reasoning agents, even OpenAI o3-mini (high) with code execution feedback, can create counterexamples for only <9% of incorrect solutions in REFUTE, even though ratings indicate its ability to solve up to 48% of these problems from scratch. We hope our work spurs progress in evaluating and enhancing LMs' ability to falsify incorrect solutions - a capability that is crucial for both accelerating research and making models self-improve through reliable reflective reasoning.