VLDB 2026 Research / reviewers in the wild / expert
Kensen Shi
dblp:135/8307
· DBLP profile ↗
14ranked-venue papers
7as first author
9since 2021 · last 2024
0000-0001-7140-7869ORCID · corroborated
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 12 · 5 first-author · 8 since 2021Systems, architecture and hardware · 2 · 1 first-authorSoftware engineering, systems software and programming languages · 2 · 2 first-author · 1 since 2021
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
10 papers |
Program synthesis and code generation · 58% Program analysis · 21% Debugging and program repair · 8% | |
| Artificial intelligence
10 papers |
Language models and text generation · 40% Deep learning architectures and training · 15% Planning, search and constraint satisfaction · 13% |
Topics — the 30 heaviest of 36, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Program synthesis and code generation
programming by example |
1.0 | 2 | 2022 | TF-Coder: Program Synthesis for Tensor Manipulations · ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 2022 FrAngel: component-based synthesis with control structures · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2019 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
compositional generalization |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | ExeDec: Execution Decomposition for Compositional Generalization in Neural Program Synthesis · ICLR 2024 |
Debugging and program repair
automated program repair |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | NExT: Teaching Large Language Models to Reason about Code Execution · ICML 2024 |
Program analysis
dynamic analysis |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | NExT: Teaching Large Language Models to Reason about Code Execution · ICML 2024 |
Program analysis › dynamic analysis › trace analysis
execution trace analysis |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | NExT: Teaching Large Language Models to Reason about Code Execution · ICML 2024 |
Program synthesis and code generation
neural program synthesis |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | ExeDec: Execution Decomposition for Compositional Generalization in Neural Program Synthesis · ICLR 2024 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
chain-of-thought reasoning |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | PaLM: Scaling Language Modeling with Pathways · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2023 |
Machine learning › Transfer learning and domain adaptation
few-shot learning |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | PaLM: Scaling Language Modeling with Pathways · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2023 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
instruction following |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | PaLM: Scaling Language Modeling with Pathways · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2023 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
large language model |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | PaLM: Scaling Language Modeling with Pathways · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2023 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
scaling laws |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | PaLM: Scaling Language Modeling with Pathways · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2023 |
Program synthesis and code generation
code generation from natural language |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Natural Language to Code Generation in Interactive Data Science Notebooks · ACL (1) 2023 |
Program synthesis and code generation
code generation with language models |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Can Large Language Models Reason about Program Invariants? · ICML 2023 |
Program synthesis and code generation
higher-order function synthesis |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | LambdaBeam: Neural Program Search with Higher-Order Functions and Lambdas · NeurIPS 2023 |
Program verification
invariant generation |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Can Large Language Models Reason about Program Invariants? · ICML 2023 |
Program synthesis and code generation › search-based program synthesis
bottom-up synthesis |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | CrossBeam: Learning to Search in Bottom-Up Program Synthesis · ICLR 2022 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction › machine learning for planning
learning to search |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | BUSTLE: Bottom-Up Program Synthesis Through Learning-Guided Exploration · ICLR 2021 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › monte carlo methods
monte carlo estimation |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Incremental Sampling Without Replacement for Sequence Models · ICML 2020 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
pre-trained language model |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Learning and Evaluating Contextual Embedding of Source Code · ICML 2020 |
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning › mini-batch sampling
sampling without replacement |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Incremental Sampling Without Replacement for Sequence Models · ICML 2020 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
sequence modeling |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Incremental Sampling Without Replacement for Sequence Models · ICML 2020 |
Program analysis
code representation learning |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Learning and Evaluating Contextual Embedding of Source Code · ICML 2020 |
Empirical software engineering
mining software repositories |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Learning and Evaluating Contextual Embedding of Source Code · ICML 2020 |
Program synthesis and code generation
component-based synthesis |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | FrAngel: component-based synthesis with control structures · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2019 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
code language models |
0.2 | 1 | 2024 | NExT: Teaching Large Language Models to Reason about Code Execution · ICML 2024 |
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning
distributed training |
0.2 | 1 | 2023 | PaLM: Scaling Language Modeling with Pathways · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2023 |
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning › distributed training
model parallelism |
0.2 | 1 | 2023 | PaLM: Scaling Language Modeling with Pathways · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2023 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
policy learning |
0.2 | 1 | 2023 | LambdaBeam: Neural Program Search with Higher-Order Functions and Lambdas · NeurIPS 2023 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training › deep learning systems
deep learning framework |
0.2 | 1 | 2022 | TF-Coder: Program Synthesis for Tensor Manipulations · ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 2022 |
Robotics › Motion planning and robot control › motion planning › sampling-based motion planning
probabilistic roadmap |
0.2 | 1 | 2013 | Lazy Toggle PRM: A single-query approach to motion planning · ICRA 2013 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
large language model · 2.8transformer models · 1.5self-training · 1.5execution decomposition · 1.5chain-of-thought reasoning · 1.5semantic vector representation · 1.3neural policy network · 1.3transformer · 1.1fine-tuning · 1.1scratchpad prompting · 0.7program synthesis · 0.7pathways · 0.7reinforcement learning · 0.6
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | ExeDec: Execution Decomposition for Compositional Generalization in Neural Program SynthesisabstractWhen writing programs, people have the ability to tackle a new complex task by decomposing it into smaller and more familiar subtasks. While it is difficult to measure whether neural program synthesis methods have similar capabilities, we can measure whether they compositionally generalize, that is, whether a model that has been trained on the simpler subtasks is subsequently able to solve more complex tasks. In this paper, we characterize several different forms of compositional generalization that are desirable in program synthesis, forming a meta-benchmark which we use to create generalization tasks for two popular datasets, RobustFill and DeepCoder. We then propose ExeDec, a novel decomposition-based synthesis strategy that predicts execution subgoals to solve problems step-by-step informed by program execution at each step. When used with Transformer models trained from scratch, ExeDec has better synthesis performance and greatly improved compositional generalization ability compared to baselines. Finally, we use our benchmarks to demonstrate that LLMs struggle to compositionally generalize when asked to do programming-by-example in a few-shot setting, but an ExeDec-style prompting approach can improve the generalization ability and overall performance. Kensen Shi, Joey Hong, Yinlin Deng, Manzil Zaheer, Charles Sutton |
ICLR | 1 |
| 2024 | NExT: Teaching Large Language Models to Reason about Code ExecutionabstractA fundamental skill among human developers is the ability to understand and reason about program execution. As an example, a programmer can mentally simulate code execution in natural language to debug and repair code (aka. rubber duck debugging). However, large language models (LLMs) of code are typically trained on the surface textual form of programs, thus may lack a semantic understanding of how programs execute at run-time. To address this issue, we propose NExT, a method to teach LLMs to inspect the execution traces of programs (variable states of executed lines) and reason about their run-time behavior through chain-of-thought (CoT) rationales. Specifically, NExT uses self-training to bootstrap a synthetic training set of execution-aware rationales that lead to correct task solutions (e.g., fixed programs) without laborious manual annotation. Experiments on program repair tasks based on MBPP and HumanEval demonstrate that NExT improves the fix rate of a PaLM 2 model, by 26.1% and 10.3% absolute, respectively, with significantly improved rationale quality as verified by automated metrics and human raters. Our model can also generalize to scenarios where program traces are absent at test-time. Ansong Ni, Miltiadis Allamanis, Arman Cohan, Yinlin Deng, Kensen Shi, Charles Sutton |
ICML | 5 |
| 2023 | Natural Language to Code Generation in Interactive Data Science NotebooksabstractPengcheng Yin, Wen-Ding Li, Kefan Xiao, Abhishek Rao, Yeming Wen, Kensen Shi, Joshua Howland, Paige Bailey, Michele Catasta, Henryk Michalewski, Oleksandr Polozov, Charles Sutton. Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2023. Wen-Ding Li, Kefan Xiao, Abhishek Rao, Yeming Wen, Kensen Shi, Joshua Howland, Paige Bailey, Michele Catasta, Henryk Michalewski, Oleksandr Polozov, Charles Sutton |
ACL (1) | 6 |
| 2023 | Can Large Language Models Reason about Program Invariants?abstractIdentifying invariants is an important program analysis task with applications towards program understanding, bug finding, vulnerability analysis, and formal verification. Existing tools for identifying program invariants rely on dynamic analysis, requiring traces collected from multiple executions in order to produce reliable invariants. We study the application of large language models to invariant prediction, finding that models trained on source code and fine-tuned for invariant generation can perform invariant prediction as static rather than dynamic analysis. Using a scratchpad approach where invariants are predicted sequentially through a program gives the best performance, finding invariants statically of quality comparable to those obtained by a dynamic analysis tool with access to five program traces. Kexin Pei, David Bieber, Kensen Shi, Charles Sutton |
ICML | 3 |
| 2023 | LambdaBeam: Neural Program Search with Higher-Order Functions and LambdasabstractSearch is an important technique in program synthesis that allows for adaptive strategies such as focusing on particular search directions based on execution results. Several prior works have demonstrated that neural models are effective at guiding program synthesis searches. However, a common drawback of those approaches is the inability to handle iterative loops, higher-order functions, or lambda functions, thus limiting prior neural searches from synthesizing longer and more general programs. We address this gap by designing a search algorithm called LambdaBeam that can construct arbitrary lambda functions that compose operations within a given DSL. We create semantic vector representations of the execution behavior of the lambda functions and train a neural policy network to choose which lambdas to construct during search, and pass them as arguments to higher-order functions to perform looping computations. Our experiments show that LambdaBeam outperforms neural, symbolic, and LLM-based techniques in an integer list manipulation domain. Kensen Shi, Hanjun Dai, Wen-Ding Li, Kevin Ellis, Charles Sutton |
NeurIPS | 1 |
| 2023 | PaLM: Scaling Language Modeling with PathwaysabstractLarge language models have been shown to achieve remarkable performance across a variety of natural language tasks using few-shot learning, which drastically reduces the number of task-specific training examples needed to adapt the model to a particular application. To further our understanding of the impact of scale on few-shot learning, we trained a 540-billion parameter, densely activated, Transformer language model, which we call Pathways Language Model (PaLM). We trained PaLM on 6144 TPU v4 chips using Pathways, a new ML system which enables highly efficient training across multiple TPU Pods. We demonstrate continued benefits of scaling by achieving state-of-the-art few-shot learning results on hundreds of language understanding and generation benchmarks. On a number of these tasks, PaLM 540B achieves breakthrough performance, outperforming the finetuned state-of-the-art on a suite of multi-step reasoning tasks, and outperforming average human performance on the recently released BIG-bench benchmark. A significant number of BIG-bench tasks showed discontinuous improvements from model scale, meaning that performance steeply increased as we scaled to our largest model. PaLM also has strong capabilities in multilingual tasks and source code generation, which we demonstrate on a wide array of benchmarks. We additionally provide a comprehensive analysis on bias and toxicity, and study the extent of training data memorization with respect to model scale. Finally, we discuss the ethical considerations related to large language models and discuss potential mitigation strategies. Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham 0001, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, Parker Schuh, Kensen Shi, Sasha Tsvyashchenko, Joshua Maynez, Abhishek Rao, Parker Barnes, Yi Tay, Noam Shazeer, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Emily Reif, Nan Du 0002, Ben Hutchinson, Reiner Pope, Jacob Austin, Michael Isard, Guy Gur-Ari, Toju Duke, Anselm Levskaya, Sanjay Ghemawat, Sunipa Dev, Henryk Michalewski, Xavier Garcia, Vedant Misra, Kevin Robinson, William Fedus, Denny Zhou, Daphne Ippolito, David Luan, Hyeontaek Lim, Barret Zoph, Alexander Spiridonov, Ryan Sepassi, David Dohan, Shivani Agrawal, Mark Omernick, Andrew M. Dai, Thanumalayan Sankaranarayana Pillai, Marie Pellat, Aitor Lewkowycz, Erica Moreira, Rewon Child, Oleksandr Polozov, Katherine Lee, Zongwei Zhou, Xuezhi Wang 0002, Brennan Saeta, Mark Diaz, Orhan Firat, Michele Catasta, Jason Wei, Kathy Meier-Hellstern, Douglas Eck, Jeffrey Dean, Slav Petrov, Noah Fiedel |
J. Mach. Learn. Res. | 12 |
| 2022 | CrossBeam: Learning to Search in Bottom-Up Program Synthesis
Kensen Shi, Hanjun Dai, Kevin Ellis, Charles Sutton |
ICLR | 1 |
| 2022 | TF-Coder: Program Synthesis for Tensor ManipulationsabstractThe success and popularity of deep learning is on the rise, partially due to powerful deep learning frameworks such as TensorFlow and PyTorch, which make it easier to develop deep learning models. However, these libraries also come with steep learning curves, since programming in these frameworks is quite different from traditional imperative programming with explicit loops and conditionals. In this work, we present a tool called TF-Coder for programming by example in TensorFlow. TF-Coder uses a bottom-up weighted enumerative search, with value-based pruning of equivalent expressions and flexible type- and value-based filtering to ensure that expressions adhere to various requirements imposed by the TensorFlow library. We train models to predict TensorFlow operations from features of the input and output tensors and natural language descriptions of tasks to prioritize relevant operations during search. TF-Coder solves 63 of 70 real-world tasks within 5 minutes, sometimes finding simpler solutions in less time compared to experienced human programmers. Kensen Shi, David Bieber, Rishabh Singh |
ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. | 1 |
| 2021 | BUSTLE: Bottom-Up Program Synthesis Through Learning-Guided Exploration
Augustus Odena, Kensen Shi, David Bieber, Rishabh Singh, Charles Sutton, Hanjun Dai |
ICLR | 2 |
| 2020 | Learning and Evaluating Contextual Embedding of Source CodeabstractRecent research has achieved impressive results on understanding and improving source code by building up on machine-learning techniques developed for natural languages. A significant advancement in natural-language understanding has come with the development of pre-trained contextual embeddings, such as BERT, which can be fine-tuned for downstream tasks with less labeled data and training budget, while achieving better accuracies. However, there is no attempt yet to obtain a high-quality contextual embedding of source code, and to evaluate it on multiple program-understanding tasks simultaneously; that is the gap that this paper aims to mitigate. Specifically, first, we curate a massive, deduplicated corpus of 7.4M Python files from GitHub, which we use to pre-train CuBERT, an open-sourced code-understanding BERT model; and, second, we create an open-sourced benchmark that comprises five classification tasks and one program-repair task, akin to code-understanding tasks proposed in the literature before. We fine-tune CuBERT on our benchmark tasks, and compare the resulting models to different variants of Word2Vec token embeddings, BiLSTM and Transformer models, as well as published state-of-the-art models, showing that CuBERT outperforms them all, even with shorter training, and with fewer labeled examples. Future work on source-code embedding can benefit from reusing our benchmark, and from comparing against CuBERT models as a strong baseline. Aditya Kanade 0001, Petros Maniatis, Gogul Balakrishnan, Kensen Shi |
ICML | 4 |
| 2020 | Incremental Sampling Without Replacement for Sequence ModelsabstractSampling is a fundamental technique, and sampling without replacement is often desirable when duplicate samples are not beneficial. Within machine learning, sampling is useful for generating diverse outputs from a trained model. We present an elegant procedure for sampling without replacement from a broad class of randomized programs, including generative neural models that construct outputs sequentially. Our procedure is efficient even for exponentially-large output spaces. Unlike prior work, our approach is incremental, i.e., samples can be drawn one at a time, allowing for increased flexibility. We also present a new estimator for computing expectations from samples drawn without replacement. We show that incremental sampling without replacement is applicable to many domains, e.g., program synthesis and combinatorial optimization. Kensen Shi, David Bieber, Charles Sutton |
ICML | 1 |
| 2019 | FrAngel: component-based synthesis with control structuresabstractIn component-based program synthesis, the synthesizer generates a program given a library of components (functions). Existing component-based synthesizers have difficulty synthesizing loops and other control structures, and they often require formal specifications of the components, which can be expensive to generate. We present FrAngel, a new approach to component-based synthesis that can synthesize short Java functions with control structures when given a desired signature, a set of input-output examples, and a collection of libraries (without formal specifications). FrAngel aims to discover programs with many distinct behaviors by combining two main ideas. First, it mines code fragments from partially-successful programs that only pass some of the examples. These extracted fragments are often useful for synthesis due to a property that we call special-case similarity . Second, FrAngel uses angelic conditions as placeholders for control structure conditions and optimistically evaluates the resulting program sketches. Angelic conditions decompose the synthesis process: FrAngel first finds promising partial programs and later fills in their missing conditions. We demonstrate that FrAngel can synthesize a variety of interesting programs with combinations of control structures within seconds, significantly outperforming prior state-of-the-art. Kensen Shi, Jacob Steinhardt, Percy Liang |
Proc. ACM Program. Lang. | 1 |
| 2014 | Spark PRM: Using RRTs within PRMs to efficiently explore narrow passagesabstractProbabilistic RoadMaps (PRMs) have been successful for many high-dimensional motion planning problems. However, they encounter difficulties when mapping narrow passages. While many PRM sampling methods have been proposed to increase the proportion of samples within narrow passages, such difficult planning areas still pose many challenges. We introduce a novel algorithm, Spark PRM, that sparks the growth of Rapidly-expanding Random Trees (RRTs) from narrow passage samples generated by a PRM. The RRT rapidly generates further narrow passage samples, ideally until the passage is fully mapped. After reaching a terminating condition, the tree stops growing and is added to the roadmap. Spark PRM is a general method that can be applied to all PRM variants. We study the benefits of Spark PRM with a variety of sampling strategies in a wide array of environments. We show significant speedups in computation time over RRT, Sampling-based Roadmap of Trees (SRT), and various PRM variants. Kensen Shi, Jory Denny, Nancy M. Amato |
ICRA | 1 |
| 2013 | Lazy Toggle PRM: A single-query approach to motion planningabstractProbabilistic RoadMaps (PRMs) are quite successful in solving complex and high-dimensional motion planning problems. While particularly suited for multiple-query scenarios and expansive spaces, they lack efficiency in both solving single-query scenarios and mapping narrow spaces. Two PRM variants separately tackle these gaps. Lazy PRM reduces the computational cost of roadmap construction for single-query scenarios by delaying roadmap validation until query time. Toggle PRM is well suited for mapping narrow spaces by mapping both Cfreeand Cobst, which gives certain theoretical benefits. However, fully validating the two resulting roadmaps can be costly. We present a strategy, Lazy Toggle PRM, for integrating these two approaches into a method which is both suited for narrow passages and efficient single-query calculations. This simultaneously addresses two challenges of PRMs. Like Lazy PRM, Lazy Toggle PRM delays validation of roadmaps until query time, but if no path is found, the algorithm augments the roadmap using the Toggle PRM methodology. We demonstrate the effectiveness of Lazy Toggle PRM in a wide range of scenarios, including those with narrow passages and high descriptive complexity (e.g., those described by many triangles), concluding that it is more effective than existing methods in solving difficult queries. Jory Denny, Kensen Shi, Nancy M. Amato |
ICRA | 2 |