Designing an algorithm from a natural-language problem statement requires identifying the problem structure, reading constraints, choosing a suitable paradigm, checking correctness, and refining complexity. Existing large language model (LLM) methods often rely on direct generation or generic self-refinement, leaving these steps implicit. We propose AlgoSkill, which models algorithm design as sequential decision-making over a typed library of algorithmic skills, including abstraction, constraint analysis, state design, data-structure selection, proof checking, counterexample construction, and complexity refinement. A learned scheduler proposes skills from the current design state, while a Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) controller explores skill sequences using verification feedback from compilation, testing, stress testing, and complexity analysis. Experiments on competitive programming and combinatorial optimization benchmarks show that AlgoSkill improves over direct LLM generation, chain-of-thought prompting, self-refinement, and MCTS without typed skills. Ablations show that typed skills, verification-based repair, and search-based scheduling each contribute to performance. These results support treating automatic algorithm design as verification-guided skill scheduling rather than one-shot code generation.
Large language models have advanced automated algorithm discovery by synthesizing executable code, but existing frameworks trap them in rigid search pipelines with pre-defined control flows. This limitation restricts adaptive reasoning, blocks cross-paradigm transfer, and discards valuable execution feedback. We propose AlgoEvo, a unified agentic framework that transforms automated algorithm discovery into an interactive, knowledge-accumulating process. An autonomous agent dynamically inspects, diagnoses, and edits code based on runtime feedback. A design skill hub decouples paradigm-specific knowledge from the core discovery engine, allowing a single workflow to seamlessly handle single-objective, multi-objective, and multi-component design. Meanwhile, a hierarchical experience mechanism organizes search trajectories into a task-level tree to guide exploration and consolidates cross-task patterns into reusable skills. Across six representative benchmark tasks, AlgoEvo matches or surpasses specialized methods with substantially fewer evaluations and reduced token consumption, demonstrating strong intra-task accumulation, cross-task transfer, and the ability to reproduce or exceed existing state-of-the-art performance through flexible skill activation.
High pass rates on established programming benchmarks such as HumanEval and LiveCodeBench do not always show whether a model can reason about algorithms. Many fixed benchmarks eventually become part of the public training ecosystem through released problem statements, editorials, and generated solutions, allowing later models to improve partly by exposure rather than by stronger algorithmic ability. We introduce ALGOBENCH, a framework that automatically builds novel algorithmic problems from known competitive-programming problems through structured constraint-shifting transformations. Each accepted ALGOBENCH variant is traceable to a source problem, but must make the original reference algorithm fail. Beyond pass@k, we introduce complexity-aware metrics -- including OPTT, OPTS, TRAPRATE, GAPT, and CONSENS -- to test whether a solution is not only functionally correct but also asymptotically suitable for the generated problem. Experiments across multiple LLMs and prompting strategies show that performance drops sharply on ALGOBENCH variants, retrieval can increase reuse of the old algorithm, and many correct-looking solutions fail to meet the required complexity. Error analysis shows that failures are mainly algorithmic rather than implementation-level, suggesting that ALGOBENCH evaluates adaptation beyond functional correctness.
Large language models (LLMs) have emerged as powerful tools for automatic algorithm design (AAD). However, existing pipelines remain inefficient. They operate at the granularity of full algorithms, redundantly rewriting recurring substructures and discarding low-fitness candidates that may contain valuable algorithmic features. We formalize budget-efficient automatic algorithm design, wherein the search policy maximizes realized fitness subject to limited computational cost. We propose a directed acyclic graph representation of algorithms and build a search framework that fully exploits the LLM's output. Instead of querying the LLM for full algorithms, we use it to obtain corrections: compact operators that add, replace, or remove code blocks. Each correction augments the graph, yielding new algorithms that compose with prior corrections. This graph structure decomposes algorithms into sets of corrections, enabling correction-level credit assignment that informs subsequent queries. We complement this framework with theoretical insights into the ideal balance between search depth and breadth at different budget levels. We validate our method empirically on three combinatorial optimization problems, demonstrating consistent superiority of our graph-based search over full-algorithm search at equal token budget. Finally, our experiments suggest that rich contexts help only when the LLM's prior knowledge is shallow, and can hinder performance otherwise.