skip to main content
research-article
Open Access

Languages with Decidable Learning: A Meta-theorem

Published:06 April 2023Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

We study expression learning problems with syntactic restrictions and introduce the class of finite-aspect checkable languages to characterize symbolic languages that admit decidable learning. The semantics of such languages can be defined using a bounded amount of auxiliary information that is independent of expression size but depends on a fixed structure over which evaluation occurs. We introduce a generic programming language for writing programs that evaluate expression syntax trees, and we give a meta-theorem that connects such programs for finite-aspect checkable languages to finite tree automata, which allows us to derive new decidable learning results and decision procedures for several expression learning problems by writing programs in the programming language.

References

  1. Rajeev Alur, Rastislav Bodík, Eric Dallal, Dana Fisman, Pranav Garg, Garvit Juniwal, Hadas Kress-Gazit, P. Madhusudan, Milo M. K. Martin, Mukund Raghothaman, Shambwaditya Saha, Sanjit A. Seshia, Rishabh Singh, Armando Solar-Lezama, Emina Torlak, and Abhishek Udupa. 2015. Syntax-Guided Synthesis. In Dependable Software Systems Engineering (NATO Science for Peace and Security Series, D: Information and Communication Security, Vol. 40). IOS Press, 1–25. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Angello Astorga, P. Madhusudan, Shambwaditya Saha, Shiyu Wang, and Tao Xie. 2019. Learning Stateful Preconditions modulo a Test Generator. In Proceedings of the 40th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI 2019). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. 775–787. isbn:9781450367127 https://doi.org/10.1145/3314221.3314641 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Angello Astorga, Shambwaditya Saha, Ahmad Dinkins, Felicia Wang, P. Madhusudan, and Tao Xie. 2021. Synthesizing Contracts Correct modulo a Test Generator. Proc. ACM Program. Lang., 5, OOPSLA (2021), Article 104, oct, 27 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3485481 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Patrick Blackburn, Maarten de Rijke, and Yde Venema. 2001. Modal Logic. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107050884 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Manuel Bodirsky. 2021. Complexity of Infinite-Domain Constraint Satisfaction. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107337534 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. J. Richard Büchi. 1990. On a Decision Method in Restricted Second Order Arithmetic. Springer New York, New York, NY. 425–435. isbn:978-1-4613-8928-6 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-8928-6_23 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. J. Richard Buchi and Lawrence H. Landweber. 1969. Solving Sequential Conditions by Finite-State Strategies. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 138 (1969), 295–311. issn:00029947 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1994916 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. J. Richard Büchi. 1960. Weak Second-Order Arithmetic and Finite Automata. Mathematical Logic Quarterly, 6, 1-6 (1960), 66–92. https://doi.org/10.1002/malq.19600060105 arxiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/malq.19600060105. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Thierry Cachat. 2002. Two-Way Tree Automata Solving Pushdown Games. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg. 303–317. isbn:3540003886 Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. José Cambronero, Sumit Gulwani, Vu Le, Daniel Perelman, Arjun Radhakrishna, Clint Simon, and Ashish Tiwari. 2023. FlashFill++: Scaling Programming by Example by Cutting to the Chase. In Principles of Programming Languages. ACM. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/flashfill-scaling-programming-by-example-by-cutting-to-the-chase/ Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Alonzo Church. 1963. Application of Recursive Arithmetic to the Problem of Circuit Synthesis. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 28, 4 (1963), 289–290. https://doi.org/10.2307/2271310 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. H. Comon, M. Dauchet, R. Gilleron, C. Löding, F. Jacquemard, D. Lugiez, S. Tison, and M. Tommasi. 2007. Tree Automata Techniques and Applications. Available on: http://www.grappa.univ-lille3.fr/tata. release October, 12th 2007. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Bruno Courcelle. 1990. The monadic second-order logic of graphs. I. Recognizable sets of finite graphs. Information and Computation, 85, 1 (1990), 12–75. issn:0890-5401 https://doi.org/10.1016/0890-5401(90)90043-H Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Professor Bruno Courcelle and Dr Joost Engelfriet. 2012. Graph Structure and Monadic Second-Order Logic: A Language-Theoretic Approach (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA. isbn:0521898331, 9780521898331 Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. John Doner. 1970. Tree acceptors and some of their applications. J. Comput. System Sci., 4, 5 (1970), 406–451. issn:0022-0000 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-0000(70)80041-1 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Calvin C. Elgot. 1961. Decision Problems of Finite Automata Design and Related Arithmetics. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 98, 1 (1961), 21–51. issn:00029947 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1993511 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Javier Esparza, Orna Kupferman, and Moshe Y. Vardi. 2021. Verification. In Handbook of Automata Theory, Jean-Éric Pin (Ed.). European Mathematical Society Publishing House, Zürich, Switzerland, 1415–1456. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Richard Evans and Edward Grefenstette. 2018. Learning Explanatory Rules from Noisy Data. J. Artif. Int. Res., 61, 1 (2018), Jan., 1–64. issn:1076-9757 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Azadeh Farzan, Danya Lette, and Victor Nicolet. 2022. Recursion Synthesis with Unrealizability Witnesses. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI 2022). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. 244–259. isbn:9781450392655 https://doi.org/10.1145/3519939.3523726 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Henning Fernau. 2009. Algorithms for learning regular expressions from positive data. Information and Computation, 207, 4 (2009), 521–541. issn:0890-5401 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ic.2008.12.008 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. J. Flum and M. Grohe. 2006. Parameterized Complexity Theory (Texts in Theoretical Computer Science. An EATCS Series). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg. isbn:3540299521 https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-29953-X Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Maurice Funk, Jean Christoph Jung, Carsten Lutz, Hadrien Pulcini, and Frank Wolter. 2019. Learning Description Logic Concepts: When can Positive and Negative Examples be Separated? In Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-19. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization, 1682–1688. https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2019/233 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Pranav Garg, Christof Löding, P. Madhusudan, and Daniel Neider. 2014. ICE: A Robust Framework for Learning Invariants. In Computer Aided Verification, Armin Biere and Roderick Bloem (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham. 69–87. isbn:978-3-319-08867-9 Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Pranav Garg, Christof Löding, P. Madhusudan, and Daniel Neider. 2015. Quantified data automata for linear data structures: a register automaton model with applications to learning invariants of programs manipulating arrays and lists. Formal Methods in System Design, 47, 1 (2015), 01 Aug, 120–157. issn:1572-8102 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10703-015-0231-6 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. 2002. Automata Logics, and Infinite Games: A Guide to Current Research, Erich Grädel, Wolfgang Thomas, and Thomas Wilke (Eds.). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg. isbn:3540003886 Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Sumit Gulwani. 2011. Automating String Processing in Spreadsheets Using Input-Output Examples. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. 317–330. isbn:9781450304900 https://doi.org/10.1145/1926385.1926423 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Annegret Habel. 1992. Graph-theoretic aspects of HRL’s. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg. 117–144. isbn:978-3-540-47340-4 https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0013882 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Travis Hance, Marijn Heule, Ruben Martins, and Bryan Parno. 2021. Finding Invariants of Distributed Systems: It’ s a Small (Enough) World After All. In 18th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI 21). USENIX Association, 115–131. isbn:978-1-939133-21-2 https://www.usenix.org/conference/nsdi21/presentation/hance Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Shivam Handa and Martin C. Rinard. 2020. Inductive Program Synthesis over Noisy Data. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE 2020). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. 87–98. isbn:9781450370431 https://doi.org/10.1145/3368089.3409732 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Wilfrid Hodges. 1993. The countable case. Cambridge University Press, 323–359. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511551574.009 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Qinheping Hu, John Cyphert, Loris D’Antoni, and Thomas Reps. 2020. Exact and Approximate Methods for Proving Unrealizability of Syntax-Guided Synthesis Problems. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI 2020). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. 1128–1142. isbn:9781450376136 https://doi.org/10.1145/3385412.3385979 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Radoslav Ivanov, Kishor Jothimurugan, Steve Hsu, Shaan Vaidya, Rajeev Alur, and Osbert Bastani. 2021. Compositional Learning and Verification of Neural Network Controllers. ACM Trans. Embed. Comput. Syst., 20, 5s (2021), Article 92, sep, 26 pages. issn:1539-9087 https://doi.org/10.1145/3477023 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Michael J. Kearns and Umesh Vazirani. 1994. An Introduction to Computational Learning Theory. The MIT Press. isbn:9780262276863 https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3897.001.0001 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Jason R. Koenig, Oded Padon, Neil Immerman, and Alex Aiken. 2020. First-Order Quantified Separators. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI 2020). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. 703–717. isbn:9781450376136 https://doi.org/10.1145/3385412.3386018 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Jason R. Koenig, Oded Padon, Sharon Shoham, and Alex Aiken. 2022. Inferring Invariants with Quantifier Alternations: Taming the Search Space Explosion. In Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, Dana Fisman and Grigore Rosu (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham. 338–356. isbn:978-3-030-99524-9 Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. James Koppel. 2021. Version Space Algebras are Acyclic Tree Automata. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2107.12568 Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. James Koppel, Zheng Guo, Edsko de Vries, Armando Solar-Lezama, and Nadia Polikarpova. 2022. Searching Entangled Program Spaces. Proc. ACM Program. Lang., 6, ICFP (2022), Article 91, aug, 29 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3547622 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Paul Krogmeier and P. Madhusudan. 2022. Learning Formulas in Finite Variable Logics. Proc. ACM Program. Lang., 6, POPL (2022), Article 10, jan, 28 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3498671 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Paul Krogmeier and P. Madhusudan. 2023. Languages With Decidable Learning: A Meta-Theorem. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2302.05741 Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Paul Krogmeier, Umang Mathur, Adithya Murali, P. Madhusudan, and Mahesh Viswanathan. 2020. Decidable Synthesis of Programs with Uninterpreted Functions. In Computer Aided Verification, Shuvendu K. Lahiri and Chao Wang (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham. 634–657. isbn:978-3-030-53291-8 Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Orna Kupferman, P. Madhusudan, P. S. Thiagarajan, and Moshe Y. Vardi. 2000. Open Systems in Reactive Environments: Control and Synthesis. In CONCUR (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1877). Springer, 92–107. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Orna Kupferman, Nir Piterman, and Moshe Y. Vardi. 2010. An Automata-Theoretic Approach to Infinite-State Systems. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg. 202–259. isbn:978-3-642-13754-9 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13754-9_11 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Pat Langley and Sean Stromsten. 2000. Learning Context-Free Grammars with a Simplicity Bias. In Machine Learning: ECML 2000, Ramon López de Mántaras and Enric Plaza (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg. 220–228. isbn:978-3-540-45164-8 Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Yunyao Li, Rajasekar Krishnamurthy, Sriram Raghavan, Shivakumar Vaithyanathan, and H. V. Jagadish. 2008. Regular Expression Learning for Information Extraction. In EMNLP. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. P. Madhusudan. 2011. Synthesizing Reactive Programs. In Computer Science Logic (CSL’11) - 25th International Workshop/20th Annual Conference of the EACSL, Marc Bezem (Ed.) (Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Vol. 12). Schloss Dagstuhl–Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, Dagstuhl, Germany. 428–442. isbn:978-3-939897-32-3 issn:1868-8969 https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.CSL.2011.428 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Kenneth L. McMillan. 1992. Symbolic Model Checking: an approach to the state explosion problem. Ph.D. Dissertation. Carnegie Mellon. thesis.pdf CMU Tech Rpt. CMU-CS-92-131. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Anders Miltner, Adrian Trejo Nuñez, Ana Brendel, Swarat Chaudhuri, and Isil Dillig. 2022. Bottom-up Synthesis of Recursive Functional Programs Using Angelic Execution. Proc. ACM Program. Lang., 6, POPL (2022), Article 21, jan, 29 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3498682 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Anders Miltner, Saswat Padhi, Todd Millstein, and David Walker. 2020. Data-Driven Inference of Representation Invariants. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI 2020). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. 1–15. isbn:9781450376136 https://doi.org/10.1145/3385412.3385967 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Tom M. Mitchell. 1982. Generalization as search. Artificial Intelligence, 18, 2 (1982), 203–226. issn:0004-3702 https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(82)90040-6 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. Thomas M. Mitchell. 1997. Machine Learning (1 ed.). McGraw-Hill, Inc., USA. isbn:0070428077 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Ulrich Möncke and Reinhard Wilhelm. 1991. Grammar flow analysis. In Attribute Grammars, Applications and Systems, Henk Alblas and Bořivoj Melichar (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg. 151–186. isbn:978-3-540-38490-8 Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Stephen H. Muggleton, Dianhuan Lin, Niels Pahlavi, and Alireza Tamaddoni-Nezhad. 2014. Meta-interpretive learning: application to grammatical inference. Machine Learning, 94, 1 (2014), 01 Jan, 25–49. issn:1573-0565 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10994-013-5358-3 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Daniel Neider and Ivan Gavran. 2018. Learning Linear Temporal Properties. In 2018 Formal Methods in Computer Aided Design (FMCAD). 1–10. https://doi.org/10.23919/FMCAD.2018.8603016 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. Daniel Neider, P. Madhusudan, Shambwaditya Saha, Pranav Garg, and Daejun Park. 2020. A Learning-Based Approach to Synthesizing Invariants for Incomplete Verification Engines. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 64, 7 (2020), 01 Oct, 1523–1552. issn:1573-0670 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-020-09570-z Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Peter-Michael Osera and Steve Zdancewic. 2015. Type-and-Example-Directed Program Synthesis. In Proceedings of the 36th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. 619–630. isbn:9781450334686 https://doi.org/10.1145/2737924.2738007 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Amir Pnueli. 1977. The temporal logic of programs. In 18th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (sfcs 1977). 46–57. https://doi.org/10.1109/SFCS.1977.32 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. Amir Pnueli and Roni Rosner. 1989. On the Synthesis of a Reactive Module. In POPL. ACM Press, 179–190. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. Amir Pnueli and Roni Rosner. 1990. Distributed Reactive Systems Are Hard to Synthesize. In FOCS. IEEE Computer Society, 746–757. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Nadia Polikarpova, Ivan Kuraj, and Armando Solar-Lezama. 2016. Program Synthesis from Polymorphic Refinement Types. In Proceedings of the 37th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. 522–538. isbn:9781450342612 https://doi.org/10.1145/2908080.2908093 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. Oleksandr Polozov and Sumit Gulwani. 2015. FlashMeta: A Framework for Inductive Program Synthesis. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA 2015). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. 107–126. isbn:9781450336895 https://doi.org/10.1145/2814270.2814310 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. Michael O. Rabin. 1969. Decidability of Second-Order Theories and Automata on Infinite Trees. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 141 (1969), 1–35. issn:00029947 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1995086 Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. Michael Oser Rabin. 1972. Automata on Infinite Objects and Church’s Problem. American Mathematical Society, Boston, MA, USA. isbn:0821816632 Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. Yasubumi Sakakibara. 2005. Learning context-free grammars using tabular representations. Pattern Recognition, 38, 9 (2005), 1372–1383. issn:0031-3203 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2004.03.021 Grammatical Inference. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  64. Armando Solar-Lezama, Liviu Tancau, Rastislav Bodik, Sanjit Seshia, and Vijay Saraswat. 2006. Combinatorial Sketching for Finite Programs. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS XII). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. 404–415. isbn:1595934510 https://doi.org/10.1145/1168857.1168907 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  65. James W. Thatcher and Jesse B. Wright. 1968. Generalized finite automata theory with an application to a decision problem of second-order logic. Mathematical systems theory, 2 (1968), 57–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01691346 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  66. Boris A. Trakhtenbrot. 1961. Finite automata and logic of monadic predicates. Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR, 140, 326-329 (1961), 122–123. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  67. Steffen van Bergerem. 2019. Learning Concepts Definable in First-Order Logic with Counting. In 2019 34th Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS). 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1109/LICS.2019.8785811 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  68. Steffen van Bergerem, Martin Grohe, and Martin Ritzert. 2022. On the Parameterized Complexity of Learning First-Order Logic. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGAI Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. 337–346. isbn:9781450392600 https://doi.org/10.1145/3517804.3524151 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  69. Kurt Vanlehn and William Ball. 1987. A Version Space Approach to Learning Context-free Grammars. Machine Learning, 2, 1 (1987), 01 Mar, 39–74. issn:1573-0565 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022812926936 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  70. Moshe Y. Vardi. 1998. Reasoning about the past with two-way automata. In Automata, Languages and Programming, Kim G. Larsen, Sven Skyum, and Glynn Winskel (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg. 628–641. isbn:978-3-540-68681-1 Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  71. Xinyu Wang, Isil Dillig, and Rishabh Singh. 2017. Program Synthesis Using Abstraction Refinement. Proc. ACM Program. Lang., 2, POPL (2017), Article 63, Dec., 30 pages. issn:2475-1421 https://doi.org/10.1145/3158151 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  72. Xinyu Wang, Isil Dillig, and Rishabh Singh. 2017. Synthesis of Data Completion Scripts Using Finite Tree Automata. Proc. ACM Program. Lang., 1, OOPSLA (2017), Article 62, Oct., 26 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3133886 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  73. Yuepeng Wang, Xinyu Wang, and Isil Dillig. 2018. Relational Program Synthesis. Proc. ACM Program. Lang., 2, OOPSLA (2018), Article 155, Oct., 27 pages. issn:2475-1421 https://doi.org/10.1145/3276525 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  74. Jianan Yao, Runzhou Tao, Ronghui Gu, Jason Nieh, Suman Jana, and Gabriel Ryan. 2021. DistAI: Data-Driven Automated Invariant Learning for Distributed Protocols. In 15th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI 21). USENIX Association, 405–421. isbn:978-1-939133-22-9 https://www.usenix.org/conference/osdi21/presentation/yao Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  75. He Zhu, Stephen Magill, and Suresh Jagannathan. 2018. A Data-Driven CHC Solver. In Proceedings of the 39th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI 2018). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. 707–721. isbn:9781450356985 https://doi.org/10.1145/3192366.3192416 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Languages with Decidable Learning: A Meta-theorem

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        • Article Metrics

          • Downloads (Last 12 months)117
          • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)39

          Other Metrics

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader
        About Cookies On This Site

        We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

        Learn more

        Got it!