Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Hengdi Su
dblp:337/1044
· DBLP profile ↗
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
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Logic in computer science › temporal logic
linear temporal logic |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Checking LTL Satisfiability via End-to-end Learning · ASE 2022 |
Automated reasoning and model checking › satisfiability
LTL satisfiability checking |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Checking LTL Satisfiability via End-to-end Learning · ASE 2022 |
Automated reasoning and model checking
neural-symbolic reasoning |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | 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
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | Checking LTL Satisfiability via End-to-end LearningabstractLinear 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 |
ASE | 5 |