Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.

Matthew Bowers

dblp:282/1446 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
4ranked-venue papers
1as first author
4since 2021 · last 2024
0000-0001-8450-7033ORCID · reported

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 3 · 3 since 2021Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 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
4 papers
Program synthesis and code generation · 90% Software maintenance and evolution · 10%
Artificial intelligence
2 papers
Language models and text generation · 57% Representation and self-supervised learning · 43%

Topics — the 6 heaviest of 8, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Program synthesis and code generation › inductive program synthesis
library learning
1.422024
LILO: Learning Interpretable Libraries by Compressing and Documenting Code · ICLR 2024
Top-Down Synthesis for Library Learning · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2023
Program synthesis and code generation › neural program synthesis
LLM-based program synthesis
1.422024
LILO: Learning Interpretable Libraries by Compressing and Documenting Code · ICLR 2024
Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Program Better · ICLR 2023
Program synthesis and code generation › neural program synthesis
neurosymbolic program synthesis
0.812024
LILO: Learning Interpretable Libraries by Compressing and Documenting Code · ICLR 2024
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
code generation
0.712023
Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Program Better · ICLR 2023
Software maintenance and evolution › refactoring
automated refactoring
0.212024
LILO: Learning Interpretable Libraries by Compressing and Documenting Code · ICLR 2024
Software maintenance and evolution
refactoring
0.212024
LILO: Learning Interpretable Libraries by Compressing and Documenting Code · ICLR 2024

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

self-training · 1.3language model · 1.3program synthesis · 1.0abstract semantics · 1.0symbolic compression · 0.8large language model · 0.8auto-documentation · 0.8syntactic pattern matching · 0.7search space pruning · 0.7
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2024 LILO: Learning Interpretable Libraries by Compressing and Documenting Code
abstract
While large language models (LLMs) now excel at code generation, a key aspect of software development is the art of refactoring: consolidating code into libraries of reusable and readable programs. In this paper, we introduce LILO, a neurosymbolic framework that iteratively synthesizes, compresses, and documents code to build libraries tailored to particular problem domains. LILO combines LLM-guided program synthesis with recent algorithmic advances in automated refactoring from Stitch: a symbolic compression system that efficiently identifies optimal lambda abstractions across large code corpora. To make these abstractions interpretable, we introduce an auto-documentation (AutoDoc) procedure that infers natural language names and docstrings based on contextual examples of usage. In addition to improving human readability, we find that AutoDoc boosts performance by helping LILO's synthesizer to interpret and deploy learned abstractions. We evaluate LILO on three inductive program synthesis benchmarks for string editing, scene reasoning, and graphics composition. Compared to existing neural and symbolic methods—including the state-of-the-art library learning algorithm DreamCoder—LILO solves more complex tasks and learns richer libraries that are grounded in linguistic knowledge.
Gabriel Grand, Lionel Wong, Matthew Bowers, Theo X. Olausson, Muxin Liu, Josh Tenenbaum, Jacob Andreas
ICLR3
2023 Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Program Better
Patrick Haluptzok, Matthew Bowers, Adam Tauman Kalai
ICLR2
2023 Top-Down Synthesis for Library Learning
abstract
This paper introduces corpus-guided top-down synthesis as a mechanism for synthesizing library functions that capture common functionality from a corpus of programs in a domain specific language (DSL). The algorithm builds abstractions directly from initial DSL primitives, using syntactic pattern matching of intermediate abstractions to intelligently prune the search space and guide the algorithm towards abstractions that maximally capture shared structures in the corpus. We present an implementation of the approach in a tool called Stitch and evaluate it against the state-of-the-art deductive library learning algorithm from DreamCoder. Our evaluation shows that Stitch is 3-4 orders of magnitude faster and uses 2 orders of magnitude less memory while maintaining comparable or better library quality (as measured by compressivity). We also demonstrate Stitch’s scalability on corpora containing hundreds of complex programs that are intractable with prior deductive approaches and show empirically that it is robust to terminating the search procedure early—further allowing it to scale to challenging datasets by means of early stopping.
Matthew Bowers, Theo X. Olausson, Lionel Wong, Gabriel Grand, Josh Tenenbaum, Kevin Ellis, Armando Solar-Lezama
Proc. ACM Program. Lang.1
2021 Representing Partial Programs with Blended Abstract Semantics
Maxwell I. Nye, Yewen Pu, Matthew Bowers, Jacob Andreas, Josh Tenenbaum, Armando Solar-Lezama
ICLR3