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.
? Tutorial for this page

Hengdi Su

dblp:337/1044 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2022
—ORCID · unresolved

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 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.

Theoretical computer science
1 paper
Automated reasoning and model checking · 67% Logic in computer science · 33%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Logic in computer science › temporal logic
linear temporal logic
0.612022
Checking LTL Satisfiability via End-to-end Learning · ASE 2022
Automated reasoning and model checking › satisfiability
LTL satisfiability checking
0.612022
Checking LTL Satisfiability via End-to-end Learning · ASE 2022
Automated reasoning and model checking
neural-symbolic reasoning
0.612022
Checking LTL Satisfiability via End-to-end Learning · ASE 2022

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

neural network · 0.6end-to-end learning · 0.6
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2022 Checking LTL Satisfiability via End-to-end Learning
abstract
Linear temporal logic (LTL) satisfiability checking is a fundamental and hard (PSPACE-complete) problem. In this paper, we explore checking LTL satisfiability via end-to-end learning, so that we can take only polynomial time to check LTL satisfiability. Existing approaches have shown that it is possible to leverage end-to-end neural networks to predict the Boolean satisfiability problem with performance considerably higher than random guessing. Inspired by these approaches, we study two interesting questions: can end-to-end neural networks check LTL satisfiability, and can neural networks capture the semantics of LTL? To this end, we train different neural networks for keeping three logical properties of LTL, i.e., recursive property, permutation invariance, and sequentiality. We demonstrate that neural networks can indeed capture some effective biases for checking LTL satisfiability. Besides, designing a special neural network keeping the logical properties of LTL can provide a better inductive bias. We also show the competitive results of neural networks compared with state-of-the-art approaches, i.e., nuXmv and Aalta, on large scale datasets.
Weilin Luo, Hai Wan, Delong Zhang, Jianfeng Du, Hengdi Su
ASE5