Learning Randomized Reductions
Ferhat Erata, Orr Paradise, Thanos Typaldos, Timos Antonopoulos, ThanhVu Nguyen, Shafi Goldwasser, Ruzica Piskac

TL;DR
This paper introduces Bitween, an automated learning framework for discovering randomized self-reductions of functions, outperforming existing methods and enabling the discovery of new properties through neuro-symbolic approaches with large language models.
Contribution
The paper presents a novel automated learning framework for RSRs using linear regression and a neuro-symbolic approach with language models, advancing the discovery process in complexity theory and cryptography.
Findings
Bitween outperforms traditional symbolic methods on RSR-Bench.
Agentic Bitween discovers new RSR properties using large language models.
The framework automates the derivation of RSRs, reducing manual effort.
Abstract
A self-corrector for a function takes a black-box oracle computing that is correct on most inputs and turns it into one that is correct on every input with high probability. Self-correctors exist for any function that is randomly self-reducible (RSR), where the value at a given point can be recovered by computing on random correlated points. While RSRs enable powerful self-correction capabilities and have applications in complexity theory and cryptography, their discovery has traditionally required manual derivation by experts. We present Bitween, a method and tool for automated learning of randomized self-reductions for mathematical functions. We make two key contributions: First, we demonstrate that our learning framework based on linear regression outperforms sophisticated methods including genetic algorithms, symbolic regression, and mixed-integer linear…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2026 Conference Desk Rejected Submission
The paper introduces an interesting framework for RSRs, which potentially could be highly impactful. The proposed Bitween combines sparse linear regression with formal verification, and is further extended to the neuro-symbolic A-Bitween. The concept and the methodology are novel, and appear effective as argued in the paper. The method's theoretical foundation is sound, with a clear connection to PAC learning. The proposed RSR-Bench could be a valueable contribution to the field. Using 80
The empirical comparison is not clearly presented. It is written that "Vanilla Bitween surpasses traditional symbolic methods within the fixed query function paradigm, discovering 76 total verified RSRs compared to PySR’s 54, GP-Learn’s 47, and MILP’s 64". The details should be provided. The comparisons focus on PySR, GPLearn, and MILP, while other methods, e.g. AI Feynman and DSR are mentioned but not used. Justification should be provided for that. In addition, the detailed settings of o
1. The problem is well-presented, well-motivated, and establishes a valuable connection to the well-known field of PAC learning. 2. The authors dedicate significant effort to building a theoretical foundation, stating assumptions and providing formal proofs. 3. The core problem of learning RSRs is interesting and holds potential for broader applications.
1. The theoretical foundation is riddled with numerous formatting and referencing errors. These mistakes significantly detract from the readability and undermine the mathematical rigor, which is a key claimed contribution. Examples include citation errors (e.g., L983), vague self-references (e.g., Section 2 referring to itself in L88), and, most critically, incorrect cross-references within the theoretical sections. The text refers to "Theorem 5" when it means "Definition 5", and similar errors
1.The paper is in general well written and the method is easy to understand. 2.The combination of linear regression and symbolic verification is practical and well-motivated.
1.The query function generation process of agentic Bitween is opaque, and the convergence behavior is not guaranteed. 2.The experimental design focused on quantity and lacked in-depth analysis. For example, there is a lack of in-depth discussion on whether the designed RSRs have mathematical meaning. 3.Authors argue that the proposed method outperforms sophisticated methods like GP and SR. The interpretability is the merit of GP and SR, the author should analyze this point. 4.The study mainly
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsMachine Learning and Algorithms · Machine Learning and Data Classification · Algorithms and Data Compression
