EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Johannes Langer
dblp:320/7858
· DBLP profile ↗
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
2since 2021 · last 2026
—ORCID · unresolved
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 2 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1 · 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
1 paper |
Program synthesis and code generation · 67% Empirical software engineering · 33% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Empirical software engineering
developer studies |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | Can Humans Teach Machines to Code? · AAAI 2026 |
Program synthesis and code generation
inductive program synthesis |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | Can Humans Teach Machines to Code? · AAAI 2026 |
Program synthesis and code generation
programming by example |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | Can Humans Teach Machines to Code? · AAAI 2026 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
user study · 1.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | Can Humans Teach Machines to Code?abstractThe goal of inductive program synthesis is for a machine to automatically generate a program from user-supplied examples. A key underlying assumption is that humans can provide sufficient examples to teach a concept to a machine. To evaluate the validity of this assumption, we conduct a study where human participants provide examples for six programming concepts, such as finding the maximum element of a list. We evaluate the generalisation performance of five program synthesis systems trained on input-output examples (i) from a human group, (ii) from a gold standard set, and (iii) randomly sampled. Our results suggest that human-provided examples are typically insufficient for a program synthesis system to learn an accurate program. Céline Hocquette, Johannes Langer, Andrew Cropper, Ute Schmid |
AAAI | 2 |
| 2023 | Explanatory machine learning for sequential human teachingabstractAbstract The topic of comprehensibility of machine-learned theories has recently drawn increasing attention. Inductive logic programming uses logic programming to derive logic theories from small data based on abduction and induction techniques. Learned theories are represented in the form of rules as declarative descriptions of obtained knowledge. In earlier work, the authors provided the first evidence of a measurable increase in human comprehension based on machine-learned logic rules for simple classification tasks. In a later study, it was found that the presentation of machine-learned explanations to humans can produce both beneficial and harmful effects in the context of game learning. We continue our investigation of comprehensibility by examining the effects of the ordering of concept presentations on human comprehension. In this work, we examine the explanatory effects of curriculum order and the presence of machine-learned explanations for sequential problem-solving. We show that (1) there exist tasks A and B such that learning A before learning B results in better comprehension for humans in comparison to learning B before learning A and (2) there exist tasks A and B such that the presence of explanations when learning A contributes to improved human comprehension when subsequently learning B. We propose a framework for the effects of sequential teaching on comprehension based on an existing definition of comprehensibility and provide evidence for support from data collected in human trials. Our empirical study involves curricula that teach novices the merge sort algorithm. Our results show that sequential teaching of concepts with increasing complexity (a) has a beneficial effect on human comprehension and (b) leads to human re-discovery of divide-and-conquer problem-solving strategies, and (c) allows adaptations of human problem-solving strategy with better performance when machine-learned explanations are also presented. Lun Ai 0001, Johannes Langer, Stephen H. Muggleton, Ute Schmid |
Mach. Learn. | 2 |