MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281873108 · doi:10.1145/3519939.3523726

Recursion synthesis with unrealizability witnesses

2022· article· en· W4281873108 on OpenAlexaff
Azadeh Farzan, Danya Lette, Victor Nicolet

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, programming, and type systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecursion (computer science)Computer scienceCounterexampleSet (abstract data type)Program synthesisFunction (biology)Theoretical computer scienceWitnessRecursive functionsAlgorithmProgramming languageMathematicsDiscrete mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose SE2GIS, a novel inductive recursion synthesis approach with the ability to both synthesize code and declare a problem unsolvable. SE2GIS combines a symbolic variant of counterexample-guided inductive synthesis (CEGIS) with a new dual inductive procedure, which focuses on proving a synthesis problem unsolvable rather than finding a solution for it. A vital component of this procedure is a new algorithm that produces a witness, a set of concrete assignments to relevant variables, as a proof that the synthesis instance is not solvable. Witnesses in the dual inductive procedure play the same role that solutions do in classic CEGIS; that is, they ensure progress. Given a reference function, invariants on the input recursive data types, and a target family of recursive functions, SE2GIS synthesizes an implementation in this family that is equivalent to the reference implementation, or declares the problem unsolvable and produces a witness for it. We demonstrate that SE2GIS is effective in both cases; that is, for interesting data types with complex invariants, it can synthesize non-trivial recursive functions or output witnesses that contain useful feedback for the user.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLogic, programming, and type systemsFrench-language works237,207