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

Kshitij Bansal

dblp:44/2394 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
mathematical reasoning
0.922021
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
0.822020
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
0.412020
Mathematical Reasoning in Latent Space · ICLR 2020
Machine learning › Graph learning
graph neural network
0.412020
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
0.412020
Mathematical Reasoning in Latent Space · ICLR 2020
Automated reasoning and model checking
theorem proving
0.412020
Graph Representations for Higher-Order Logic and Theorem Proving · AAAI 2020
Automated reasoning and model checking
satisfiability modulo theories
0.422015
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
0.412019
HOList: An Environment for Machine Learning of Higher Order Logic Theorem Proving · ICML 2019
Automated reasoning and model checking › decision procedures
bit-vector reasoning
0.212014
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
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2021 Mathematical Reasoning via Self-supervised Skip-tree Training
Markus N. Rabe, Dennis Lee 0003, Kshitij Bansal, Christian Szegedy
ICLR3
2021 Decomposing Data Structure Commutativity Proofs with $m\!n$-Differencing
Eric Koskinen, Kshitij Bansal
VMCAI2
2020 Graph Representations for Higher-Order Logic and Theorem Proving
abstract
This 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
AAAI4
2020 Mathematical Reasoning in Latent Space
Dennis Lee 0003, Christian Szegedy, Markus N. Rabe, Sarah M. Loos, Kshitij Bansal
ICLR5
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 Proving
abstract
We 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
ICML1
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 SMT
abstract
We 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
CAV2
2013 Structural Counter Abstraction
Kshitij Bansal, Eric Koskinen, Thomas Wies, Damien Zufferey
TACAS1
2009 Beyond Shapes: Lists with Ordered Data
Kshitij Bansal, Rémi Brochenin, Étienne Lozes
FoSSaCS1