Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 2 minor 65 references

PyKirigami: An interactive Python simulator for kirigami structures

T0 review · 4 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read PyKirigami treats kirigami tessellations as articulated rigid-body networks to simulate deployment in real time.

desk verdict A kirigami simulator abstract attached to an unrelated program-synthesis paper: there is nothing here to referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.15753 v4 pith:V6S2BEWP submitted 2025-08-21 cond-mat.soft cond-mat.mtrl-scics.CG

Qinghai Jiang , Gary P. T. Choi This is my paper
classification cond-mat.softcond-mat.mtrl-scics.CG
keywords kirigamideployablestructureskinematicsimulationrigid-bodynetworkscollisiondetectioninteractivePythonframeworktessellations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper presents PyKirigami, a lightweight open-source Python framework for simulating how kirigami structures deploy. Instead of solving continuum mechanics equations, it models the tessellation as panels connected by ideal joints, so the global folding motion and volume change can be computed fast enough for interactive use. The tool includes collision detection and lets the user actuate the structure directly, which is meant to reveal whether a folding path is feasible and where the structure gets geometrically locked. The point is to provide a quick kinematic check before costly finite-element analysis or physical fabrication.

What carries the argument

Articulated rigid-body network: the kirigami tessellation is represented as rigid panels connected by ideal (frictionless) joints, with motion generated by user actuation and constraints enforced by the network. Collision detection runs on this network to flag self-contact, and the resulting locked configurations are identified without solving for stress or strain. It carries the argument because the speed and interactivity come precisely from dropping continuum mechanics.

What would settle it

Build a physical kirigami sample from a compliant material, simulate the same geometry in PyKirigami, and compare the final deployed shapes and locking configurations: if the physical structure reaches a different deployed shape or locks at a state the simulator says is free, the rigid-body assumption fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the deployment behaviour of a kirigami structure can be captured by pure rigid-body kinematics of its panels: each panel is a rigid tile, joints impose constraints, and the global trajectory is found by moving the network. On this model, PyKirigami gives real-time simulation of global deployment and volumetric transformation, and its collision detection identifies self-contact and geometric locking states in both 2D and 3D topologies. If this is right, a designer can validate folding paths and spot locking configurations interactively, reserving expensive mechanical analysis for designs that already pass the kinematic screen.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that kirigami deployment can be predicted from rigid panel motion alone, so material bending, stretching, and strain do not change the folding path or the locking states.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If rigid-body kinematics is sufficient, kirigami design space can be explored interactively without finite-element analysis.
  • Users can pre-check which geometries lock or self-contact before building a physical prototype.
  • Open-source availability lets researchers build on the simulator for custom tessellations and actuation schemes.
  • Real-time feedback makes it feasible to search over many cut-and-fold patterns during design.
  • Collision-driven locking states could feed directly into generative design loops as feasibility constraints.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same rigid-body network approach could be extended to other articulated systems, such as origami or deployable trusses, with minimal conceptual changes.
  • A natural validation test is to compare predicted locking states against physical prototypes made of materials with varying compliance; where compliance changes the folding path, a strain-aware correction layer would be needed.
  • Coupling the kinematic simulator with a local finite-element solver on selected panels could yield a two-stage workflow that is both fast and mechanically faithful.
  • The collision routine's geometric fidelity could be benchmarked against known self-contact cases for kirigami patterns.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 2 minor

Summary. The submission's abstract presents PyKirigami, an open-source Python framework for real-time rigid-body deployment simulation of kirigami structures, with collision detection, interactive actuation, and identification of geometric locking states in 2D and 3D. The full text provided, however, is an unrelated manuscript titled 'Active Learning for Neurosymbolic Program Synthesis' by Barnaby et al., with footer arXiv:2508.15750v2. The body contains no mention of kirigami, rigid-body kinematics, collision detection, interactive actuation, or any supporting experiments, benchmarks, code, or validation. The abstract's claims are therefore entirely unsupported by the supplied manuscript.

Significance. If PyKirigami exists and performs as claimed, it could be a useful fast kinematic pre-screening tool for kirigami design, complementing FEA. However, this submission provides no evidence of the framework's existence, let alone its performance. There is no machine-checked code, no comparison against FEA or experiments, no parameter-free derivation, and no falsifiable prediction that can be assessed. The unrelated full text cannot serve as support. Consequently, the significance of the claimed contribution cannot be evaluated from this manuscript.

major comments (4)
  1. [Full Text] The full text is 'Active Learning for Neurosymbolic Program Synthesis' by Celeste Barnaby et al. (arXiv:2508.15750v2), a paper about active learning and conformal prediction for program synthesis. It contains zero content on kirigami, articulated rigid-body networks, collision detection, interactive actuation, or deployment simulation. The load-bearing claims in the abstract—real-time simulation, collision detection, geometric locking states—are therefore unsubstantiated by any methods, equations, experiments, or code in this submission.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract states that PyKirigami models tessellations as articulated rigid-body networks, allowing real-time simulation and identification of geometric locking states. No validation against FEA or physical experiments is provided anywhere in the submission. The rigid-body approximation is asserted, not tested. Since the intended use is 'to validate folding paths and self-contacts prior to physical fabrication,' the absence of any accuracy assessment is a load-bearing gap.
  3. [Full Text (all sections)] There is no code repository, no pseudocode, no algorithmic description of the collision detection routine, and no benchmark of runtime or geometric fidelity. For a software/tool paper, these are essential. The 'real-time' claim is not accompanied by any measurement or system specification, and the collision-detection claim is not accompanied by any geometric fidelity test.
  4. [Title/Abstract vs. Full Text] The title, abstract, author list, and references of the submission do not match the full text. This is not a scientific disagreement but an internal inconsistency that makes the manuscript unassessable as submitted. The submission's arXiv identifier (2508.15753) also conflicts with the footer of the full text (2508.15750v2).
minor comments (2)
  1. [Full Text, References] In the unrelated full text, references [25] and [79] are duplicates of the same paper (Verbruggen et al., 2021). This is a minor presentation issue in a manuscript that is not otherwise relevant to the claimed topic.
  2. [General] The abstract uses the phrase 'geometric locking states' without definition or illustration. Even if the correct full text were supplied, this term would need precise definition in the context of rigid-body kinematics.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity identified; full-text manuscript mismatch makes the PyKirigami derivation chain unassessable, but no circular step is present in the submitted text.

full rationale

The abstract claims PyKirigami is a rigid-body kirigami simulator with real-time deployment simulation, collision detection, and locking-state identification. However, the appended full text is an unrelated paper, 'Active Learning for Neurosymbolic Program Synthesis' (arXiv:2508.15750v2), whose title, authors, subject, and bibliography have no connection to kirigami, rigid-body kinematics, collision detection, or validation against FEA. Because the derived claims in the abstract are not backed by any equations, methods, or experimental results in the body, there is no derivation chain to audit for self-definition, fitted-input-called-prediction, or self-citation-load-bearing circularity. The full-text mismatch is a serious evidentiary and completeness defect: the central claims are unsupported by the submitted manuscript. But unsupportedness is not circularity. No passage in the supplied text asserts a limitation, missing support, a missing reference, a circular step, or an omitted proof regarding PyKirigami; the absence of the intended methods section means circularity cannot be established under the requirement to quote the specific reduction. Therefore the honest finding is no significant circularity, score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The abstract states two load-bearing modeling premises: (1) kirigami sheets can be simulated as articulated rigid-body networks with elasticity ignored, and (2) collision and self-contact detection in that rigid model reveals the geometric locking states of the physical structure. No free parameters are declared at the abstract level (joint stiffness, collision tolerances, and integration timesteps would likely be internal parameters in the actual implementation, but none are specified here), and no new physical entities are introduced. A complete ledger requires the missing manuscript.

assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption Kirigami deployment kinematics are adequately represented as articulated rigid-body networks, ignoring panel deformation, strain, and stress.
    Stated in the abstract ('models tessellations as articulated rigid-body networks'); this modeling simplification is what enables real-time speed and is the premise on which the tool's usefulness rests. Its fidelity to physical deployment is not validated anywhere in the supplied text.
  • domain assumption Collision and self-contact detection in the rigid-body simulation identifies the same geometric locking states as physical folding paths.
    The abstract claims users can 'identify geometric locking states'; this requires the collision handling to be faithful to physical self-contact, which is not demonstrated or benchmarked in the supplied text.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of PyKirigami: An interactive Python simulator for kirigami structures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V6S2BEWP

@misc{pith2026250815753,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: PyKirigami: An interactive Python simulator for kirigami structures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V6S2BEWP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.15753}
}
read the original abstract

In recent years, the concept of kirigami has been used in creating deployable structures for various scientific and technological applications. While high-fidelity Finite Element Analysis (FEA) is the standard for analyzing stress distributions and material deformation, it is computationally intensive and often ill-suited for the rapid exploration of vast kinematic configuration spaces. In this work, we develop PyKirigami, a lightweight, open-source Python framework for the efficient deployment simulation of kirigami structures. Unlike continuum mechanics solvers, PyKirigami models tessellations as articulated rigid-body networks, allowing for the real-time simulation of global deployment trajectories and volumetric transformations. The tool incorporates collision detection and interactive actuation, enabling users to validate folding paths and identify geometric locking states in both 2D and 3D topologies. This framework serves as a fast kinematic prototyping tool for kirigami structures, allowing researchers to verify deployment mechanics and self-contacts prior to performing detailed mechanical analysis or physical fabrication.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [22]

    Kevin Ellis, Daniel Ritchie, Armando Solar-Lezama, and Josh Tenenbaum. 2018. Learning to infer graphics programs from hand-drawn images. Advances in neural information processing systems 31 (2018)

    work page 2018

  2. [23]

    Yu Feng, Ruben Martins, Jacob Van Geffen, Isil Dillig, and Swarat Chaudhuri. 2017. Component-based synthesis of table consolidation and transformation tasks from examples. ACM SIGPLAN Notices 52, 6 (2017), 422–436

    work page 2017

  3. [24]

    Margarida Ferreira, Miguel Terra-Neves, Miguel Ventura, Inês Lynce, and Ruben Martins. 2021. FOREST: An interactive multi-tree synthesizer for regular expressions. In International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems. Springer, 152–169

    work page 2021

  4. [25]

    Margarida Ferreira, Miguel Terra-Neves, Miguel Ventura, Inês Lynce, and Ruben Martins. 2021. FOREST: An Interactive Multi-tree Synthesizer for Regular Expressions. In Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems , Jan Friso Groote and Kim Guldstrand Larsen (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 152–169

    work page 2021

  5. [26]

    Aymeric Fromherz, Abdelraouf Ouadjaout, and Antoine Miné. 2018. Static value analysis of Python programs by abstract interpretation. In NASA Formal Methods: 10th International Symposium, NFM 2018, Newport News, V A, USA, April 17-19, 2018, Proceedings 10 . Springer, 185–202

    work page 2018

  6. [27]

    Alexander L Gaunt, Marc Brockschmidt, Nate Kushman, and Daniel Tarlow. 2017. Differentiable programs with neural libraries. In International Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR, 1213–1222

    work page 2017

  7. [28]

    Isaac Gibbs and Emmanuel Candes. 2021. Adaptive conformal inference under distribution shift. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34 (2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [29]

    Isaac Gibbs and Emmanuel Candès. 2021. Conformal inference for online prediction with arbitrary distribution shifts. In NeurIPS

    work page 2021

Show all 65 references
  1. [30]

    Zheng Guo, Michael James, David Justo, Jiaxiao Zhou, Ziteng Wang, Ranjit Jhala, and Nadia Polikarpova. 2019. Program synthesis by type-guided abstraction refinement. Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages 4, POPL (2019), 1–28

    2019

  2. [31]

    Tanmay Gupta and Aniruddha Kembhavi. 2023. Visual programming: Compositional visual reasoning without training. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . 14953–14962

    2023

  3. [32]

    Sankha Narayan Guria, Jeffrey S Foster, and David Van Horn. 2023. Absynthe: Abstract Interpretation-Guided Synthesis. Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages 7, PLDI (2023), 1584–1607

    2023

  4. [33]

    Shivam Handa and Martin Rinard. 2021. Program Synthesis Over Noisy Data with Guarantees. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.05030 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  5. [34]

    Shivam Handa and Martin C Rinard. 2020. Inductive program synthesis over noisy data. InProceedings of the 28th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering . 87–98

    2020

  6. [35]

    Dan Hendrycks and Thomas Dietterich. 2019. Benchmarking neural network robustness to common corruptions and perturbations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.12261 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  7. [36]

    Jiani Huang, Calvin Smith, Osbert Bastani, Rishabh Singh, Aws Albarghouthi, and Mayur Naik. 2020. Generating programmatic referring expressions via program synthesis. In International Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR, 4495–4506

    2020

  8. [37]

    Seshia, and Ashish Tiwari

    Susmit Jha, Sumit Gulwani, Sanjit A. Seshia, and Ashish Tiwari. 2010. Oracle-guided component-based program synthesis. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering - Volume 1 (Cape Town, South Africa) (ICSE ’10). Association for Computin...

    2010

  9. [38]

    Ruyi Ji, Chaozhe Kong, Yingfei Xiong, and Zhenjiang Hu. 2023. Improving Oracle-Guided Inductive Synthesis by Efficient Question Selection.Proc. ACM Program. Lang.7, OOPSLA1, Article 103 (apr 2023), 29 pages. doi:10.1145/3586055

    2023 doi

  10. [39]

    Ruyi Ji, Jingjing Liang, Yingfei Xiong, Lu Zhang, and Zhenjiang Hu. 2020. Question selection for interactive program synthesis. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (London, UK) (PLDI 2020). Association for Computi...

    2020 doi

  11. [40]

    Chengyue Jiang, Zijian Jin, and Kewei Tu. 2021. Neuralizing regular expressions for slot filling. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing . 9481–9498

    2021

  12. [41]

    Justin Johnson, Bharath Hariharan, Laurens Van Der Maaten, Judy Hoffman, Li Fei-Fei, C Lawrence Zitnick, and Ross Girshick. 2017. Inferring and executing programs for visual reasoning. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision . 2989–2998

    2017

  13. [42]

    Sven Keidel and Sebastian Erdweg. 2019. Sound and reusable components for abstract interpretation. Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages 3, OOPSLA (2019), 1–28

    2019

  14. [43]

    Alex Kendall, Matthew Grimes, and Roberto Cipolla. 2015. Posenet: A convolutional network for real-time 6-dof camera relocalization. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision . 2938–2946

    2015

  15. [44]

    Larissa Laich, Pavol Bielik, and Martin Vechev. 2020. Guiding Program Synthesis by Learning to Generate Examples. In International Conference on Learning Representations . https://openreview.net/forum?id=BJl07ySKvS Proc. ACM Program. Lang., Vol. 9, No. OOPSLA2, Article 324. Pu...

    2020

  16. [45]

    Yann LeCun, Léon Bottou, Yoshua Bengio, and Patrick Haffner. 1998. Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition. Proc. IEEE 86, 11 (1998), 2278–2324

    1998

  17. [46]

    Yen-Cheng Liu, Chih-Yao Ma, Zijian He, Chia-Wen Kuo, Kan Chen, Peizhao Zhang, Bichen Wu, Zsolt Kira, and Peter Vajda. 2021. Unbiased teacher for semi-supervised object detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.09480 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  18. [47]

    Robin Manhaeve, Sebastijan Dumancic, Angelika Kimmig, Thomas Demeester, and Luc De Raedt. 2018. Deepproblog: Neural probabilistic logic programming. Advances in neural information processing systems 31 (2018)

    2018

  19. [48]

    Emanuele Marconato, Stefano Teso, Antonio Vergari, and Andrea Passerini. 2023. Not all neuro-symbolic concepts are created equal: Analysis and mitigation of reasoning shortcuts. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2023), 72507–72539

    2023

  20. [49]

    Benjamin Mariano, Yanju Chen, Yu Feng, Greg Durrett, and Işil Dillig. 2022. Automated transpilation of imperative to functional code using neural-guided program synthesis. Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages 6, OOPSLA1 (2022), 1–27

    2022

  21. [50]

    Mikaël Mayer, Gustavo Soares, Maxim Grechkin, Vu Le, Mark Marron, Oleksandr Polozov, Rishabh Singh, Benjamin Zorn, and Sumit Gulwani. 2015. User interaction models for disambiguation in programming by example. InProceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface So...

    2015

  22. [51]

    Mikaël Mayer, Gustavo Soares, Maxim Grechkin, Vu Le, Mark Marron, Oleksandr Polozov, Rishabh Singh, Benjamin Zorn, and Sumit Gulwani. 2015. User Interaction Models for Disambiguation in Programming by Example. InProceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface So...

    2015

  23. [52]

    Stephen Mell, Steve Zdancewic, and Osbert Bastani. 2024. Optimal Program Synthesis via Abstract Interpretation. Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages 8, POPL (2024), 457–481

    2024

  24. [53]

    Manasij Mukherjee, Pranav Kant, Zhengyang Liu, and John Regehr. 2020. Dataflow-based pruning for speeding up superoptimization. Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages 4, OOPSLA (2020), 1–24

    2020

  25. [54]

    Aaditya Naik, Jason Liu, Claire Wang, Amish Sethi, Saikat Dutta, Mayur Naik, and Eric Wong. 2024. Dolphin: A programmable framework for scalable neurosymbolic learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.03348 (2024)

    2024

  26. [55]

    Yuval Netzer, Tao Wang, Adam Coates, Alessandro Bissacco, Baolin Wu, Andrew Y Ng, et al. 2011. Reading digits in natural images with unsupervised feature learning. In NIPS workshop on deep learning and unsupervised feature learning, Vol. 2011. Granada, 4

    2011

  27. [56]

    Liqiang Nie, Shuicheng Yan, Meng Wang, Richang Hong, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2012. Harvesting visual concepts for image search with complex queries. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM International Conference on Multimedia (Nara, Japan) (MM ’12). Association for Computing Machinery, Ne...

    2012

  28. [57]

    Saswat Padhi, Prateek Jain, Daniel Perelman, Oleksandr Polozov, Sumit Gulwani, and Todd Millstein. 2018. FlashProfile: a framework for synthesizing data profiles. Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2, OOPSLA, Article 150 (Oct. 2018), 28 pages. doi:10.1145/3276520

    2018 doi

  29. [58]

    Shankara Pailoor, Yuepeng Wang, Xinyu Wang, and Isil Dillig. 2021. Synthesizing data structure refinements from integrity constraints. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation. 574–587

    2021

  30. [59]

    Sangdon Park, Edgar Dobriban, Insup Lee, and Osbert Bastani. 2021. PAC prediction sets under covariate shift. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.09848 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  31. [60]

    Ramya Ramalingam, Sangdon Park, and Osbert Bastani. 2024. Uncertainty Quantification for Neurosymbolic Programs via Compositional Conformal Prediction. (2024). arXiv:2405.15912

    2024 arXiv

  32. [61]

    Veselin Raychev, Pavol Bielik, Martin Vechev, and Andreas Krause. 2016. Learning programs from noisy data. ACM Sigplan Notices 51, 1 (2016), 761–774

    2016

  33. [62]

    Pengzhen Ren, Yun Xiao, Xiaojun Chang, Po-Yao Huang, Zhihui Li, Brij B Gupta, Xiaojiang Chen, and Xin Wang. 2021. A survey of deep active learning. ACM computing surveys (CSUR) 54, 9 (2021), 1–40

    2021

  34. [63]

    Mooly Sagiv, Thomas Reps, and Reinhard Wilhelm. 2002. Parametric shape analysis via 3-valued logic.ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS) 24, 3 (2002), 217–298

    2002

  35. [64]

    Greg Schohn and David Cohn. 2000. Less is more: Active learning with support vector machines. In ICML, Vol. 2. Citeseer, 6

    2000

  36. [65]

    Amazon Web Services. n.d.. Amazon Rekognition Documentation. https://docs.aws.amazon.com/rekognition/ Accessed: 2025-03-13

    2025

  37. [66]

    Burr Settles. 2009. Active learning literature survey. (2009)

    2009

  38. [67]

    Glenn Shafer and Vladimir Vovk. 2008. A tutorial on conformal prediction. Journal of Machine Learning Research 9, Mar (2008), 371–421

    2008

  39. [68]

    Ameesh Shah, Eric Zhan, Jennifer Sun, Abhinav Verma, Yisong Yue, and Swarat Chaudhuri. 2020. Learning differentiable programs with admissible neural heuristics. Advances in neural information processing systems 33 (2020), 4940–4952. Proc. ACM Program. Lang., Vol. 9, No. OOPSLA...

    2020

  40. [69]

    Rishabh Singh and Armando Solar-Lezama. 2011. Synthesizing data structure manipulations from storyboards. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGSOFT symposium and the 13th European conference on Foundations of software engineering. 289–299

    2011

  41. [70]

    Sunbeom So and Hakjoo Oh. 2017. Synthesizing imperative programs from examples guided by static analysis. In International Static Analysis Symposium. Springer, 364–381

    2017

  42. [71]

    Kihyuk Sohn, David Berthelot, Nicholas Carlini, Zizhao Zhang, Han Zhang, Colin A Raffel, Ekin Dogus Cubuk, Alexey Kurakin, and Chun-Liang Li. 2020. Fixmatch: Simplifying semi-supervised learning with consistency and confidence. Advances in neural information processing systems...

    2020

  43. [72]

    Chen Sun, Chuang Gan, and Ram Nevatia. 2015. Automatic Concept Discovery From Parallel Text and Visual Corpora. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)

    2015

  44. [73]

    Dídac Surís, Sachit Menon, and Carl Vondrick. 2023. Vipergpt: Visual inference via python execution for reasoning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision . 11888–11898

    2023

  45. [74]

    Ryan J Tibshirani, Rina Foygel Barber, Emmanuel Candes, and Aaditya Ramdas. 2019. Conformal prediction under covariate shift. Advances in neural information processing systems 32 (2019)

    2019

  46. [75]

    Julien Valentin, Angela Dai, Matthias Nießner, Pushmeet Kohli, Philip Torr, Shahram Izadi, and Cem Keskin. 2016. Learning to navigate the energy landscape. In 2016 Fourth International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV) . IEEE, 323–332

    2016

  47. [76]

    Lazar Valkov, Dipak Chaudhari, Akash Srivastava, Charles Sutton, and Swarat Chaudhuri. 2018. Houdini: Lifelong learning as program synthesis. Advances in neural information processing systems 31 (2018)

    2018

  48. [77]

    Martin Vechev, Eran Yahav, and Greta Yorsh. 2010. Abstraction-guided synthesis of synchronization. InProceedings of the 37th annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages . 327–338

    2010

  49. [79]

    Gust Verbruggen, Vu Le, and Sumit Gulwani. 2021. Semantic programming by example with pre-trained models. Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages 5, OOPSLA (2021), 1–25

    2021

  50. [80]

    Chenglong Wang, Alvin Cheung, and Rastislav Bodik. 2017. Interactive Query Synthesis from Input-Output Examples. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM International Conference on Management of Data (Chicago, Illinois, USA) (SIGMOD ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, ...

    2017

  51. [81]

    Chenglong Wang, Alvin Cheung, and Rastislav Bodik. 2017. Synthesizing highly expressive SQL queries from input-output examples. In Proceedings of the 38th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation. 452–466

    2017

  52. [82]

    Lei Wang, Chen Ma, Xueyang Feng, Zeyu Zhang, Hao Yang, Jingsen Zhang, Zhiyuan Chen, Jiakai Tang, Xu Chen, Yankai Lin, et al. 2024. A survey on large language model based autonomous agents. Frontiers of Computer Science 18, 6 (2024), 186345

    2024

  53. [83]

    Xinyu Wang, Greg Anderson, Isil Dillig, and Kenneth L McMillan. 2018. Learning abstractions for program synthesis. In Computer Aided Verification: 30th International Conference, CA V 2018, Held as Part of the Federated Logic Conference, FloC 2018, Oxford, UK, July 14-17, 2018,...

    2018

  54. [84]

    Xinyu Wang, Isil Dillig, and Rishabh Singh. 2017. Program synthesis using abstraction refinement. Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages 2, POPL (2017), 1–30

    2017

  55. [85]

    Qingyun Wu, Gagan Bansal, Jieyu Zhang, Yiran Wu, Beibin Li, Erkang Zhu, Li Jiang, Xiaoyun Zhang, Shaokun Zhang, Jiale Liu, et al . 2023. Autogen: Enabling next-gen llm applications via multi-agent conversation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08155 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  56. [86]

    Chen Xu and Yao Xie. 2021. Conformal prediction interval for dynamic time-series. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 139) . PMLR, 11559–11569

    2021

  57. [87]

    Yongho Yoon, Woosuk Lee, and Kwangkeun Yi. 2023. Inductive program synthesis via iterative forward-backward abstract interpretation. Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages 7, PLDI (2023), 1657–1681. Proc. ACM Program. Lang., Vol. 9, No. OOPSLA2, Article 324. Publicati...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.