Demo Data from SIGIR 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Jimmy Xin
dblp:341/5979
· DBLP profile ↗
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
2since 2021 · last 2025
0009-0007-7293-6579ORCID · reported
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 since 2021Software 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
2 papers |
Automated reasoning and model checking · 100% | |
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper |
Program verification · 100% |
Topics — the 5 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Automated reasoning and model checking › theorem proving
interactive theorem proving |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Automated Discovery of Tactic Libraries for Interactive Theorem Proving · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2025 |
Automated reasoning and model checking › theorem proving
proof automation |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Automated Discovery of Tactic Libraries for Interactive Theorem Proving · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2025 |
Automated reasoning and model checking › automated theorem proving
neural theorem proving |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | PutnamBench: Evaluating Neural Theorem-Provers on the Putnam Mathematical Competition · NeurIPS 2024 |
Automated reasoning and model checking
theorem proving |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | PutnamBench: Evaluating Neural Theorem-Provers on the Putnam Mathematical Competition · NeurIPS 2024 |
Program verification
proof assistants |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Automated Discovery of Tactic Libraries for Interactive Theorem Proving · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
tactic dependence graphs · 1.7anti-unification · 1.7symbolic theorem prover · 0.8neural theorem prover · 0.8
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Automated Discovery of Tactic Libraries for Interactive Theorem ProvingabstractEnabling more concise and modular proofs is essential for advancing formal reasoning using interactive theorem provers (ITPs). Since many ITPs, such as Rocq and Lean, use tactic-style proofs, learning higher-level custom tactics is crucial for proof modularity and automation. This paper presents a novel approach to tactic discovery, which leverages Tactic Dependence Graphs (TDGs) to identify reusable proof strategies across multiple proofs. TDGs capture logical dependencies between tactic applications while abstracting away irrelevant syntactic details, allowing for both the discovery of new tactics and the refactoring of existing proofs into more modular forms. We have implemented this technique in a tool called TacMiner and compare it against an anti-unification-based approach ( Peano ) to tactic discovery. Our evaluation demonstrates that TacMiner can learn 3× as many tactics as Peano and reduces the size of proofs by 26% across all benchmarks. Furthermore, our evaluation demonstrates the benefits of learning custom tactics for proof automation, allowing a state-of-the-art proof automation tool to achieve a relative increase of 172% in terms of success rate. Yutong Xin, Jimmy Xin, Gabriel Poesia, Noah D. Goodman, Qiaochu Chen, Isil Dillig |
Proc. ACM Program. Lang. | 2 |
| 2024 | PutnamBench: Evaluating Neural Theorem-Provers on the Putnam Mathematical CompetitionabstractWe present PutnamBench, a new multi-language benchmark for evaluating the ability of neural theorem-provers to solve competition mathematics problems. PutnamBench consists of 1692 hand-constructed formalizations of 640 theorems sourced from the William Lowell Putnam Mathematical Competition, the premier undergraduate-level mathematics competition in North America. All the problems have formalizations in Lean 4 and Isabelle; a substantial subset also has Coq formalizations. PutnamBench requires significant problem-solving ability and proficiency in a broad range of topics taught in undergraduate mathematics courses. We use PutnamBench to evaluate several established neural and symbolic theorem-provers. These approaches can only solve a handful of the PutnamBench problems, establishing the benchmark as a difficult open challenge for research on neural theorem-proving. PutnamBench is available at https://github.com/trishullab/PutnamBench. George Tsoukalas, Jasper Lee, John Jennings, Jimmy Xin, Michelle Ding, Michael Jennings, Amitayush Thakur, Swarat Chaudhuri |
NeurIPS | 4 |