EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Charles Staats
dblp:308/6498
· DBLP profile ↗
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
2since 2021 · last 2024
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 2 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.
| Theoretical computer science
2 papers |
Automated reasoning and model checking · 100% | |
| Artificial intelligence
1 paper |
Language models and text generation · 100% | |
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper |
Program verification · 100% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Automated reasoning and model checking › automated reasoning › mathematical reasoning
autoformalization |
1.3 | 2 | 2024 | Don't Trust: Verify - Grounding LLM Quantitative Reasoning with Autoformalization · ICLR 2024 Autoformalization with Large Language Models · NeurIPS 2022 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › mathematical reasoning
numerical reasoning |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Don't Trust: Verify - Grounding LLM Quantitative Reasoning with Autoformalization · ICLR 2024 |
Program verification
theorem proving |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Autoformalization with Large Language Models · NeurIPS 2022 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
majority voting · 1.5isabelle · 1.5autoformalization · 1.5large language model · 1.1
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | Don't Trust: Verify - Grounding LLM Quantitative Reasoning with AutoformalizationabstractLarge language models (LLM), such as Google's Minerva and OpenAI's GPT families, are becoming increasingly capable of solving mathematical quantitative reasoning problems. However, they still make unjustified logical and computational errors in their reasoning steps and answers. In this paper, we leverage the fact that if the training corpus of LLMs contained sufficiently many examples of formal mathematics (e.g. in Isabelle, a formal theorem proving environment), they can be prompted to translate i.e. autoformalize informal mathematical statements into formal Isabelle code --- which can be verified automatically for internal consistency. This provides a mechanism to automatically reject solutions whose formalized versions are inconsistent within themselves or with the formalized problem statement. We evaluate our method on GSM8K, MATH and MultiArith datasets and demonstrate that our approach provides a consistently better heuristic than vanilla majority voting --- the previously best method to identify correct answers, by more than 12\% on GSM8K. In our experiments it improves results consistently across all datasets and LLM model sizes. The code can be found at https://github.com/jinpz/dtv. Jin Peng Zhou, Charles Staats, Christian Szegedy, Kilian Q. Weinberger, Yuhuai Wu |
ICLR | 2 |
| 2022 | Autoformalization with Large Language ModelsabstractAutoformalization is the process of automatically translating from natural language mathematics to formal specifications and proofs. A successful autoformalization system could advance the fields of formal verification, program synthesis, and artificial intelligence.While the long-term goal of autoformalization seemed elusive for a long time, we show large language models provide new prospects towards this goal. We make the surprising observation that LLMs can correctly translate a significant portion ($25.3\%$) of mathematical competition problems perfectly to formal specifications in Isabelle/HOL. We demonstrate the usefulness of this process by improving a previously introduced neural theorem prover via training on these autoformalized theorems. Our methodology results in a new state-of-the-art result on the MiniF2F theorem proving benchmark, improving the proof rate from~$29.6\%$ to~$35.2\%$. Yuhuai Wu, Albert Q. Jiang, Markus N. Rabe, Charles Staats, Mateja Jamnik, Christian Szegedy |
NeurIPS | 5 |