BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Charles Staats

Charles Staats contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Machine LearningArtificial IntelligenceCryptography and SecurityLogic in Computer ScienceSoftware Engineering

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 13 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
2works
0followers
5topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Autoformalization with Large Language Models

Autoformalization is the process of automatically translating from natural language mathematics to formal specifications and proofs. A successful autoformalization system could advance the fields of formal verification, program synthesis, and artificial intelligence. While the long-term goal of autoformalization seemed elusive for a long time, we show large language models provide new prospects towards this goal. We make the surprising observation that LLMs can correctly translate a significant portion ($25.3\%$) of mathematical competition problems perfectly to formal specifications in Isabelle/HOL. We demonstrate the usefulness of this process by improving a previously introduced neural theorem prover via training on these autoformalized theorems. Our methodology results in a new state-of-the-art result on the MiniF2F theorem proving benchmark, improving the proof rate from $29.6\%$ to $35.2\%$.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

When adversarial examples are excusable

Neural networks work remarkably well in practice and theoretically they can be universal approximators. However, they still make mistakes and a specific type of them called adversarial errors seem inexcusable to humans. In this work, we analyze both test errors and adversarial errors on a well controlled but highly non-linear visual classification problem. We find that, when approximating training on infinite data, test errors tend to be close to the ground truth decision boundary. Qualitatively speaking these are also more difficult for a human. By contrast, adversarial examples can be found almost everywhere and are often obvious mistakes. However, when we constrain adversarial examples to the manifold, we observe a 90\% reduction in adversarial errors. If we inflate the manifold by training with Gaussian noise we observe a similar effect. In both cases, the remaining adversarial errors tend to be close to the ground truth decision boundary. Qualitatively, the remaining adversarial errors are similar to test errors on difficult examples. They do not have the customary quality of being inexcusable mistakes.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access