跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2608.03461 · v3

Solver-Aware Decompositions for Programming-by-Example: When Dividing Requires Knowing How to Conquer

首次提交 2026-08-04 18:57
版本更新 2026-11-02 19:13
雷达观测 2026-11-04 23:42
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

Decomposition-based Programming-by-Example splits a task into subtasks: a decomposer predicts intermediate subgoals, and a learned synthesizer generates a program for each subgoal. Execution-decomposition approaches train the decomposer to imitate ground-truth (GT) subgoals and thereby treat decomposition quality as a property of the task alone. A learned synthesizer, however, has its own inductive biases, and GT subgoals reflect how the annotator factorized the task, not what this synthesizer can solve. A decomposer that imitates them can therefore propose subgoals that are logically valid but intractable for the synthesizer. Motivated by this observation, we propose Solver-Aware Decompositions (SAD), which keeps supervised training on GT subgoals as a structural scaffold and additionally trains the decomposer online with self-critical policy gradients against a frozen synthesizer. Each sampled subgoal is rewarded with the negative cross-entropy of the synthesizer on the target program, a continuous signal of how difficult the subtask is for this synthesizer. Our experiments show an accuracy paradox: with the synthesizer fixed, a GT-supervised decomposer agrees more often with the GT subgoals, yet its subgoals lead to lower synthesis accuracy, although the synthesizer was trained on the same GT data. On two list-processing domains, SAD improves synthesis and task accuracy over the GT-supervised decomposer, both in-distribution and under length generalization; the same holds under zero-shot transfer to an external benchmark and for a fine-tuned language model. Even an oracle that receives the GT subgoals at inference time, with the same synthesizer and search, fails on tasks that SAD solves, and fewer than 2% of SAD's solutions to these tasks match the GT program. Decomposition quality is therefore not a property of the task: it depends on the synthesizer that executes the subgoals.

作者备注:Accepted at NeurIPS 2026

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v3 · 2026-11-02 19:13 · 最新观测版本

Solver-Aware Decompositions for Programming-by-Example: When Dividing Requires Knowing How to Conquer

Decomposition-based Programming-by-Example splits a task into subtasks: a decomposer predicts intermediate subgoals, and a learned synthesizer generates a program for each subgoal. Execution-decomposition approaches train the decomposer to imitate ground-truth (GT) subgoals and thereby treat decomposition quality as a property of the task alone. A learned synthesizer, however, has its own inductive biases, and GT subgoals reflect how the annotator factorized the task, not what this synthesizer can solve. A decomposer that imitates them can therefore propose subgoals that are logically valid but intractable for the synthesizer. Motivated by this observation, we propose Solver-Aware Decompositions (SAD), which keeps supervised training on GT subgoals as a structural scaffold and additionally trains the decomposer online with self-critical policy gradients against a frozen synthesizer. Each sampled subgoal is rewarded with the negative cross-entropy of the synthesizer on the target program, a continuous signal of how difficult the subtask is for this synthesizer. Our experiments show an accuracy paradox: with the synthesizer fixed, a GT-supervised decomposer agrees more often with the GT subgoals, yet its subgoals lead to lower synthesis accuracy, although the synthesizer was trained on the same GT data. On two list-processing domains, SAD improves synthesis and task accuracy over the GT-supervised decomposer, both in-distribution and under length generalization; the same holds under zero-shot transfer to an external benchmark and for a fine-tuned language model. Even an oracle that receives the GT subgoals at inference time, with the same synthesizer and search, fails on tasks that SAD solves, and fewer than 2% of SAD's solutions to these tasks match the GT program. Decomposition quality is therefore not a property of the task: it depends on the synthesizer that executes the subgoals.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗