Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Kshitij Bansal
dblp:44/2394
· DBLP profile ↗
12ranked-venue papers
7as first author
2since 2021 · last 2021
0009-0000-8992-4071ORCID · corroborated
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 6 · 4 first-author · 1 since 2021Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 5 · 2 first-author · 1 since 2021Theory of computation · 4 · 3 first-authorGraphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1
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.
| Artificial intelligence
3 papers |
Language models and text generation · 61% Graph learning · 19% Knowledge representation and reasoning · 19% | |
| Theoretical computer science
4 papers |
Automated reasoning and model checking · 100% |
Topics — the 9 heaviest of 9, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
mathematical reasoning |
0.9 | 2 | 2021 | Mathematical Reasoning via Self-supervised Skip-tree Training · ICLR 2021 Mathematical Reasoning in Latent Space · ICLR 2020 |
Automated reasoning and model checking › theorem proving
higher-order logic theorem proving |
0.8 | 2 | 2020 | Graph Representations for Higher-Order Logic and Theorem Proving · AAAI 2020 HOList: An Environment for Machine Learning of Higher Order Logic Theorem Proving · ICML 2019 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
automated reasoning |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Mathematical Reasoning in Latent Space · ICLR 2020 |
Machine learning › Graph learning
graph neural network |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Graph Representations for Higher-Order Logic and Theorem Proving · AAAI 2020 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › large language model reasoning › inference-time reasoning
latent reasoning |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Mathematical Reasoning in Latent Space · ICLR 2020 |
Automated reasoning and model checking
theorem proving |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Graph Representations for Higher-Order Logic and Theorem Proving · AAAI 2020 |
Automated reasoning and model checking
satisfiability modulo theories |
0.4 | 2 | 2015 | Deciding Local Theory Extensions via E-matching · CAV (2) 2015 A Tale of Two Solvers: Eager and Lazy Approaches to Bit-Vectors · CAV 2014 |
Automated reasoning and model checking
automated theorem proving |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | HOList: An Environment for Machine Learning of Higher Order Logic Theorem Proving · ICML 2019 |
Automated reasoning and model checking › decision procedures
bit-vector reasoning |
0.2 | 1 | 2014 | A Tale of Two Solvers: Eager and Lazy Approaches to Bit-Vectors · CAV 2014 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
graph neural network · 0.9transformer · 0.5self-supervised learning · 0.5latent space reasoning · 0.4deep reinforcement learning · 0.4HOL Light · 0.4e-matching · 0.2
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | Mathematical Reasoning via Self-supervised Skip-tree Training
Markus N. Rabe, Dennis Lee 0003, Kshitij Bansal, Christian Szegedy |
ICLR | 3 |
| 2021 | Decomposing Data Structure Commutativity Proofs with $m\!n$-Differencing
Eric Koskinen, Kshitij Bansal |
VMCAI | 2 |
| 2020 | Graph Representations for Higher-Order Logic and Theorem ProvingabstractThis paper presents the first use of graph neural networks (GNNs) for higher-order proof search and demonstrates that GNNs can improve upon state-of-the-art results in this domain. Interactive, higher-order theorem provers allow for the formalization of most mathematical theories and have been shown to pose a significant challenge for deep learning. Higher-order logic is highly expressive and, even though it is well-structured with a clearly defined grammar and semantics, there still remains no well-established method to convert formulas into graph-based representations. In this paper, we consider several graphical representations of higher-order logic and evaluate them against the HOList benchmark for higher-order theorem proving. Aditya Paliwal, Sarah M. Loos, Markus N. Rabe, Kshitij Bansal, Christian Szegedy |
AAAI | 4 |
| 2020 | Mathematical Reasoning in Latent Space
Dennis Lee 0003, Christian Szegedy, Markus N. Rabe, Sarah M. Loos, Kshitij Bansal |
ICLR | 5 |
| 2020 | Synthesizing Precise and Useful Commutativity Conditions
Kshitij Bansal, Eric Koskinen, Omer Tripp |
J. Autom. Reason. | 1 |
| 2019 | HOList: An Environment for Machine Learning of Higher Order Logic Theorem ProvingabstractWe present an environment, benchmark, and deep learning driven automated theorem prover for higher-order logic. Higher-order interactive theorem provers enable the formalization of arbitrary mathematical theories and thereby present an interesting challenge for deep learning. We provide an open-source framework based on the HOL Light theorem prover that can be used as a reinforcement learning environment. HOL Light comes with a broad coverage of basic mathematical theorems on calculus and the formal proof of the Kepler conjecture, from which we derive a challenging benchmark for automated reasoning approaches. We also present a deep reinforcement learning driven automated theorem prover, DeepHOL, that gives strong initial results on this benchmark. Kshitij Bansal, Sarah M. Loos, Markus N. Rabe, Christian Szegedy, Stewart Wilcox |
ICML | 1 |
| 2018 | Automatic Generation of Precise and Useful Commutativity Conditions
Kshitij Bansal, Eric Koskinen, Omer Tripp |
TACAS (1) | 1 |
| 2018 | Reasoning with Finite Sets and Cardinality Constraints in SMTabstractWe consider the problem of deciding the satisfiability of quantifier-free formulas in the theory of finite sets with cardinality constraints. Sets are a common high-level data structure used in programming; thus, such a theory is useful for modeling program constructs directly. More importantly, sets are a basic construct of mathematics and thus natural to use when formalizing the properties of computational systems. We develop a calculus describing a modular combination of a procedure for reasoning about membership constraints with a procedure for reasoning about cardinality constraints. Cardinality reasoning involves tracking how different sets overlap. For efficiency, we avoid considering Venn regions directly, as done in previous work. Instead, we develop a novel technique wherein potentially overlapping regions are considered incrementally as needed, using a graph to track the interaction among the different regions. The calculus has been designed to facilitate its implementation within SMT solvers based on the DPLL($T$) architecture. Our experimental results demonstrate that the new techniques are competitive with previous techniques and can scale much better on certain classes of problems. Kshitij Bansal, Clark W. Barrett, Andrew Reynolds 0001, Cesare Tinelli |
Log. Methods Comput. Sci. | 1 |
| 2015 | Deciding Local Theory Extensions via E-matching
Kshitij Bansal, Andrew Reynolds 0001, Tim King 0001, Clark W. Barrett, Thomas Wies |
CAV (2) | 1 |
| 2014 | A Tale of Two Solvers: Eager and Lazy Approaches to Bit-Vectors
Liana Hadarean, Kshitij Bansal, Dejan Jovanovic, Clark W. Barrett, Cesare Tinelli |
CAV | 2 |
| 2013 | Structural Counter Abstraction
Kshitij Bansal, Eric Koskinen, Thomas Wies, Damien Zufferey |
TACAS | 1 |
| 2009 | Beyond Shapes: Lists with Ordered Data
Kshitij Bansal, Rémi Brochenin, Étienne Lozes |
FoSSaCS | 1 |