Algorithmic reasoning -- the ability to perform step-by-step logical inference -- is a synthetic benchmark for evaluating multi-step reasoning abilities, designed for graph neural networks and also for transformer models. Prior work has evaluated reasoning for executing a single algorithmic task, whereas a more desirable objective is to perform multiple algorithmic reasoning tasks simultaneously. We start by noting that this is inherently difficult due to differences arising from the execution traces of the algorithms (such as depth- vs. breadth-first search), which cause interference when they are trained together. In this paper, we introduce {branching neural networks}, a new architecture for multitask algorithmic reasoning. The main idea is to search for a recursive tree-structured partition of n algorithmic tasks into a k-ary tree (divided into L layers). Naive search requires O(knL) complexity; we develop an algorithm that reduces this to O(nL) by solving a convex relaxation at each layer to approximate an optimal partition. Our approach clusters these tasks using gradient-based affinity and can be used on top of any base model. We validate our approach on algorithmic reasoning benchmarks and their extensions with text descriptions. We show that gradient-based affinity scores help estimate true performance with less than 5% error, measured across eight different architectures with up to 34 billion parameters. On the CLRS benchmark, our approach outperforms existing graph neural networks by 3.7% and baselines by 1.2%, while reducing runtime by 48% and memory usage by 26%. The learned branching structure shows a hierarchical clustering of related algorithms. On three text-based graph reasoning benchmarks, our approach improves over baseline methods by 3.2%. Finally, we validate our approach for overlapping community detection.
Neural algorithmic reasoning (NAR) is a paradigm that trains neural networks to execute classic algorithms by supervised learning. Despite its successes, important limitations remain: inability to construct valid solutions without post-processing and to reason about multiple correct ones, poor performance on combinatorial NP-hard problems, and inapplicability to problems for which strong algorithms are not yet known. To address these limitations, we reframe the problem of learning algorithm trajectories as a Markov decision process, which imposes structure on the solution construction procedure and unlocks the powerful tools of imitation and reinforcement learning (RL). We propose the GNARL framework, encompassing the methodology to translate problem formulations from NAR to RL and a learning architecture suitable for a wide range of graph-based problems. We achieve high rates of reaching correct states on several CLRS-30 problems and performance matching or exceeding much narrower NAR approaches for NP-hard problems. Remarkably, GNARL remains applicable when no expert algorithm is available, though reward-driven learning can exhibit greater variability than direct supervision.
Alex Schutz, Victor-Alexandru Darvariu, Efimia Panagiotaki +2
Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong potential for many mathematical problems. However, their performance on graph algorithmic tasks is still unsatisfying, since graphs are naturally more complex in topology and often require systematic multi-step reasoning, especially on larger graphs. Motivated by this gap, we propose GraphDC, a Divide-and-Conquer multi-agent framework for scalable graph algorithm reasoning. Specifically, inspired by Divide-and-Conquer design, GraphDC decomposes an input graph into smaller subgraphs, assigns each subgraph to a specialized agent for local reasoning, and uses a master agent to integrate the local outputs with inter-subgraph information to produce the final solution. This hierarchical design reduces the reasoning burden on individual agents, alleviates computational bottlenecks, and improves robustness on large graph instances. Extensive experiments show that GraphDC consistently outperforms existing methods on graph algorithm reasoning across diverse tasks and scales, especially on larger instances where direct end-to-end reasoning is less reliable.
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly asked to reason over structured data such as graphs, yet how reliably they can carry out multi-step graph algorithms in language remains unclear. Existing evaluations tend to use simple tasks on small graphs, to score code generation rather than reasoning over the graph itself, or to fix a single input format. We introduce Graph Theory Bench (GT Bench), a benchmark covering 24 classical graph problems in 44 task-structure settings, with over 100,000 examples across four representations: natural language, structured language, adjacency list, and adjacency matrix. Evaluating eight LLMs on GT Bench shows that accuracy is strongly tied to the input representation, that the best representation shifts with graph density, size, and topology as well as with the model, and that this sensitivity persists, attenuated, in the strongest reasoning models. Building on these observations, we propose the Graph Theory Agent (GTA), which pairs a preference-trained representation selector with plan-and-decompose scaffolding around a frozen executor LLM. GTA lifts Phi-4 from 53.5% to 69.1% on the benchmark's easy split and from 33.0% to 41.5% on its hard split, outperforming eight prompting and agent baselines, and transfers without retraining to GraCoRe and NLGraph. Code for benchmark generation and evaluation: https://github.com/xzx34/GTA. The project homepage is available at https://xzx34.github.io/gta/.