Programming by Example Made Easy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Programming by example (PBE) is an emerging programming paradigm that automatically synthesizes programs specified by user-provided input-output examples. Despite the convenience for end-users, implementing PBE tools often requires strong expertise in programming language and synthesis algorithms. Such a level of knowledge is uncommon among software developers. It greatly limits the broad adoption of PBE by the industry. To facilitate the adoption of PBE techniques, we propose a PBE framework called Bee , which leverages an “entity-action” model based on relational tables to ease PBE development for a wide but restrained range of domains. Implementing PBE tools with Bee only requires adapting domain-specific data entities and user actions to tables, with no need to design a domain-specific language or an efficient synthesis algorithm. The synthesis algorithm of Bee exploits bidirectional searching and constraint-solving techniques to address the challenge of value computation nested in table transformation. We evaluated Bee ’s effectiveness on 64 PBE tasks from three different domains and usability with a human study of 12 participants. Evaluation results show that Bee is easier to learn and use than the state-of-the-art PBE framework, and the bidirectional algorithm achieves comparable performance to domain-specifically optimized synthesizers.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".