RadonBench: A Benchmark of Classical and Learning-Guided Search Techniques for Problems in Combinatorial Geometry
Authors: Xiaoan Xu, Ethan X. Fang, Jesus A. De Loera, Junwei Lu, Luze Xu
Organizations: Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Duke University. · Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University. · Department of Mathematics, University of California, Davis. · Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. · Department of Mathematics, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.
Classical optimization and learning-guided search offer complementary approaches to open problems in discrete mathematics, but their outputs are difficult to compare when search spaces, validity checks, and stopping rules differ. We present RadonBench, a benchmark for constructing maximum-cardinality Radon-free lattice configurations: finite subsets of Zd admitting no integral Radon partition. It remains open whether Radon-free configurations with 11 points in Z3 or 21 points in Z4 are possible. If they exist, they would improve the corresponding lower bounds on the integer Radon numbers. We compare exhaustive extension, greedy local search, PatternBoost, AlphaZero, and AlphaEvolve. All outputs use one success predicate: a convex target-sized configuration succeeds exactly when its number of integral Radon points is zero. PatternBoost and AlphaZero construct verified Radon-free configurations of sizes 10 and 20, one point short of the respective targets; AlphaZero's best convex target terminals have two integral Radon points in both dimensions. Exhaustive extension over fixed seeds and declared finite search boxes likewise reaches a minimum of two integral Radon points. Greedy local search and AlphaEvolve each produce target-sized near misses with one integral Radon point. No audited run reaches zero. These results establish reproducible near-miss baselines over explicitly scoped search domains.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: The search problem. (a) Onn’s five-point configuration in Z2 is Radon-free ( Onn, 1991 ) . (b) An 11 -point near-miss in Z3 found by the declared local-search experiment. The displayed split has the single shared lattice point p=(3,2,0) , hence nrp=1 ; success requires nrp=0 .
Instance
Known feasible configuration
Method
Coordinate domain
Z3 , target 11
10-point Radon-free
Exhaustive extension
Added point: 20×20×8 box
Greedy local search
All points: 20×20×5 box
PatternBoost
All points: 20×20×5 box
AlphaZero-Radon
All points: 20×20×5 box
AlphaEvolve-style
No finite box
Z4 , target 21
20-point Radon-free
Exhaustive extension
Added point: 20×20×5×5 box
Table 1: Open targets, known feasible configurations immediately below them, and the coordinate domain used by each method. Box dimensions are side lengths. “No finite box” means that the evaluator accepts arbitrary finite integer coordinates. The method-specific domains are not box-matched.
Method
Starts from
Core idea
Cardinality construction : add points while keeping nrp=0 .
PatternBoost
No points
Trains a Transformer ordering prior; keeps only convex, Radon-free prefixes.
AlphaZero-Radon
No points
Uses a set-attention policy and PUCT to add points; scores any convex configuration that reaches N points under its evaluator.
Fixed-target optimization : minimize nrp over N -point configurations.
Exhaustive extension
A Radon-free set of N−1 points
Tries every location for one final point in a finite box.
Greedy local search
A convex configuration of N points
Moves one point at a time whenever the number of integral Radon points decreases.
Table 2: High-level view of the five methods. Gray bands separate the two search objectives; implementation details appear in the subsections below.
Method
Found?
kmax↑
rmin(N)↓
Z3 , target N=11
PatternBoost
No
10
–
AlphaZero-Radon
No
10
2
Exhaustive extension
No
–
2
Greedy local search
No
–
1
AlphaEvolve-style
No
–
1
Table 3: Verified outcomes at the two open targets. Found denotes a verifier-accepted target-sized output; a dash denotes an inapplicable output type.
Figure 2: Method-native construction progress. (a) For PatternBoost, solid curves show the mean cardinality among the 50 retained configurations and dotted curves show the retained maximum at each generation. (b) For AlphaZero-Radon, curves show the mean number of post-origin placements per self-play trajectory, smoothed with a 50-iteration moving average. Values are normalized by the open target cardinality in (a) and by the post-origin horizon N−1 in (b). The dashed line marks target completion. Horizontal axes are method-specific and do not represent matched compute; each curve summarizes one complete declared run.
Figure 3: Fixed-target search outcomes under the current declared protocols. (a) For exhaustive extension, bars show the distribution of the minimum nrp obtained after searching the full declared box for each of 50 fixed seeds. (b) For greedy local search, curves show empirical CDFs of the initial and terminal scores over 1,000 selected starts. (c) For AlphaEvolve-style program evolution, curves show the best-so-far score over 20 completed mutations; the first score-one program appears at mutation 7 in 3D and 11 in 4D. Colors identify the dimension. Seeds, starts, and mutations are protocol-native units and do not represent matched compute.
Appendix figures & tables7 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Instance
Seeds
Tested
Convex targets
Z3,N=11
50
159,500
85,913
Z4,N=21
50
499,000
173,355
Appendix
Table 4: Coverage of the declared exhaustive add-one-point domains. Tested excludes positions occupied by the fixed seed; convex targets are the extensions scored by the verifier.
Figure 4: Representative learning-guided 10-point configurations in 3D. PB-A–PB-D (circles) are PatternBoost outputs; AZ-A–AZ-D (squares) are AlphaZero-Radon construction prefixes. Color encodes height z , and each heading gives the layer-count vector from z=0 to z=4 . Gray edges and translucent faces show the convex-hull scaffold. To keep both compact AlphaZero-Radon configurations and box-spanning PatternBoost configurations legible, panels use their own displayed x – y limits, with the true limits shown by the ticks; the z axis is visually expanded. Every panel is a distinct Radon-free configuration. The examples illustrate structural diversity rather than empirical profile frequencies.
Table 8: AlphaZero-Radon hyperparameters shared across dimensions.
Figure 5: Training diagnostics for the complete 2,000-iteration AlphaZero-Radon runs. The top and bottom rows show the 3D ( N=11 ) and 4D ( N=21 ) instances, respectively. Curves are 50-iteration moving averages. The trajectory panels show only the mean trajectory length; the dashed line is the full horizon of 10 or 20 policy-selected placements after the fixed origin.
Combinatorial optimization finds the best feasible choices among discrete alternatives in routing, scheduling, graph problems, and resource allocation.
We study certain extremal problems in combinatorial geometry that ask about configurations of points in an n×n grid that satisfy strict, global geometric constraints. Classical exact solvers suffer from combinatorial explosion for these types of problems, and standard reinforcement learning and transformer-based models struggle with the sparse reward "validity cliff" and quadratic token-consumption limits. To overcome these bottlenecks, we propose a Geometry-Aware Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) framework. Our approach strictly enforces geometric constraints through incremental updates to the feasible action space. For constraints about collections of collinear points, like those that occur in the classic No-Three-in-Line problem (Max-N3IL), this mechanism reduces the constraint checking complexity from O(n3) to O(n2). To improve search efficiency, we exploit geometric symmetries in two ways: canonical pruning during node expansion to reduce the branching factor, and symmetric batch transitions to accelerate the discovery of promising configurations. We perform extensive experiments and establish new best-known computational results on five out of six of the problems that we considered. Notably, for Max-N3IL we find configurations of size roughly 1.8n for grids of size 82≤n≤119. For the Smallest Complete Set problem, we find configurations of size roughly 0.95n, providing new upper bounds within the tested grids. This work establishes Geometry-Aware MCTS as a highly adaptable framework for discovering novel configurations in combinatorial geometry.
Luoning Zhang, Xu Zhuang, Tianhao Wang +1
Department of Mathematics, University of California, Irvine
The Zarankiewicz number Z(m,n,s,t) is the maximum number of edges in a bipartite graph Gm,n such that there is no complete Ks,t bipartite subgraph. We determine for the first time the exact values of three Zarankiewicz numbers: Z(11,21,3,3)=116, Z(11,22,3,3)=121, and Z(12,22,3,3)=132. We further establish lower bounds for 41 more Zarankiewicz numbers, including several that are within one edge of the best known upper bound, and we match the established value in four more closed cases. Our results are obtained using OpenEvolve, an open-source evolutionary algorithm based on Large Language Models (LLMs) that iteratively improves algorithms for generating mathematical constructions by optimizing a reward signal which we tailored for this specific problem. These findings provide new extremal graph constructions and demonstrate the potential of LLM-guided evolutionary search to contribute to mathematical research. In addition to presenting the resulting constructions, we report the generation algorithms produced, describe the relevant implementation details, and provide our computational costs. Our costs are remarkably low, at less than $30 for each Zarankiewicz parameter combination, showing that LLM-guided evolutionary search can be an inexpensive, reproducible, and accessible tool for discovering new combinatorial constructions.
Jay Bhan, Nicole Nobili, Patrick Langer
ETH Zürich Zürich, Switzerland 8092 · Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305
We present improved lower bounds for nine classical Ramsey numbers: R(3,13) is increased from 60 to 61, R(3,18) from 99 to 100, R(4,13) from 138 to 139, R(4,14) from 147 to 148, R(4,15) from 158 to 159, R(4,16) from 170 to 174, R(4,18) from 205 to 209, R(4,19) from 213 to 219, and R(4,20) from 234 to 237. These results were achieved using AlphaEvolve, an LLM-based code mutation agent. Beyond these new results, we successfully recovered lower bounds for all Ramsey numbers known to be exact, and matched the best known lower bounds across many other cases. These include bounds for which previous work does not detail the algorithms used. Virtually all known Ramsey lower bounds are derived computationally, with bespoke search algorithms each delivering a handful of results. AlphaEvolve is a single meta-algorithm yielding search algorithms for all of our results.