Aaditya Naik

Aaditya Naik, Yinjun Wu, Mayur Naik et al.

Machine learning models can make critical errors that are easily hidden within vast amounts of data. Such errors often run counter to rules based on human intuition. However, rules based on human knowledge are challenging to scale or to even formalize. We thereby seek to infer statistical rules from the data and quantify the extent to which a model has learned them. We propose a framework SQRL that integrates logic-based methods with statistical inference to derive these rules from a model's training data without supervision. We further show how to adapt models at test time to reduce rule violations and produce more coherent predictions. SQRL generates up to 300K rules over datasets from vision, tabular, and language settings. We uncover up to 158K violations of those rules by state-of-the-art models for classification, object detection, and data imputation. Test-time adaptation reduces these violations by up to 68.7% with relative performance improvement up to 32%. SQRL is available at https://github.com/DebugML/sqrl.

Shuvendu K. Lahiri, Sarah Fakhoury, Aaditya Naik et al.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown great potential in automating significant aspects of coding by producing natural code from informal natural language (NL) intent. However, when interacting with LLMs, users have no guarantees that the code suggestions produced correctly satisfy the intent they provided. In fact, it is hard to define a notion of correctness since natural language can be ambiguous and lacks a formal semantics. In this paper, we propose the workflow of {\it interactive test-driven code generation}, which leverages lightweight user feedback to (a) formalize the user intent using generated tests that can be useful for debugging, and (b) produce an improved set of code suggestions by pruning and ranking candidate code suggestions. We describe a language-agnostic abstract algorithm and a concrete implementation TiCoder. We perform an automated evaluation of TiCoder on the \emph{MBPP} and \emph{HumanEval} code generation benchmarks. Our results are promising with using the OpenAI Codex LLM: our best algorithm improves the \passk{1} code generation accuracy (in absolute percentages) between $22.49\%$ to $37.71\%$ for MBPP and between $24.79\%$ to $53.98\%$ for HumanEval using between 1 to 5 simulated user queries.

Aaditya Naik, Guruprerana Shabadi, Rajeev Alur et al.

Advances in training, post-training, and inference-time methods have enabled frontier reasoning models to win gold medals in math competitions and settle challenging open problems. Gaining trust in the responses of these models requires that natural language proofs be checked for errors. LLM judges are increasingly being adopted to meet the growing demand for evaluating such proofs. While verification is considered easier than generation, what model capability does reliable verification actually require? We systematically evaluate four open-source and two frontier LLMs on datasets of human-graded natural language proofs of competition-level problems. We consider two key metrics: verifier accuracy and self-consistency (the rate of agreement across repeated judgments on the same proof). We observe that smaller open-source models are only up to ~10% behind frontier models in accuracy but they are up to ~25% more inconsistent. Furthermore, we see that verifier accuracy is sensitive to prompt choice across all models. We then demonstrate that the smaller models, in fact, do possess the mathematical capabilities to verify proofs at the level of frontier models, but they struggle to reliably elicit these capabilities with general judging prompts. Through an LLM-guided prompt search, we synthesize an ensemble of specialized prompts that overcome the specific failure modes of smaller models, boosting their performance by up to 9.1% in accuracy and 15.9% in self-consistency. These gains are realized across models and datasets, allowing models like Qwen3.5-35B to perform on par with frontier models such as Gemini 3.1 Pro for proof verification.

Aaditya Naik, Adam Stein, Yinjun Wu et al.

Finding errors in machine learning applications requires a thorough exploration of their behavior over data. Existing approaches used by practitioners are often ad-hoc and lack the abstractions needed to scale this process. We present TorchQL, a programming framework to evaluate and improve the correctness of machine learning applications. TorchQL allows users to write queries to specify and check integrity constraints over machine learning models and datasets. It seamlessly integrates relational algebra with functional programming to allow for highly expressive queries using only eight intuitive operators. We evaluate TorchQL on diverse use-cases including finding critical temporal inconsistencies in objects detected across video frames in autonomous driving, finding data imputation errors in time-series medical records, finding data labeling errors in real-world images, and evaluating biases and constraining outputs of language models. Our experiments show that TorchQL enables up to 13x faster query executions than baselines like Pandas and MongoDB, and up to 40% shorter queries than native Python. We also conduct a user study and find that TorchQL is natural enough for developers familiar with Python to specify complex integrity constraints.

Adam Stein, Aaditya Naik, Yinjun Wu et al.

Concept-based interpretability methods offer a lens into the internals of foundation models by decomposing their embeddings into high-level concepts. These concept representations are most useful when they are compositional, meaning that the individual concepts compose to explain the full sample. We show that existing unsupervised concept extraction methods find concepts which are not compositional. To automatically discover compositional concept representations, we identify two salient properties of such representations, and propose Compositional Concept Extraction (CCE) for finding concepts which obey these properties. We evaluate CCE on five different datasets over image and text data. Our evaluation shows that CCE finds more compositional concept representations than baselines and yields better accuracy on four downstream classification tasks. Code and data are available at https://github.com/adaminsky/compositional_concepts .

Adam Stein, Aaditya Naik, Neelay Velingker et al.

Neuro-symbolic learning was proposed to address challenges with training neural networks for complex reasoning tasks with the added benefits of interpretability, reliability, and efficiency. Neuro-symbolic learning methods traditionally train neural models in conjunction with symbolic programs, but they face significant challenges that limit them to simplistic problems. On the other hand, purely-neural foundation models now reach state-of-the-art performance through prompting rather than training, but they are often unreliable and lack interpretability. Supplementing foundation models with symbolic programs, which we call neuro-symbolic prompting, provides a way to use these models for complex reasoning tasks. Doing so raises the question: What role does specialized model training as part of neuro-symbolic learning have in the age of foundation models? To explore this question, we highlight three pitfalls of traditional neuro-symbolic learning with respect to the compute, data, and programs leading to generalization problems. This position paper argues that foundation models enable generalizable neuro-symbolic solutions, offering a path towards achieving the original goals of neuro-symbolic learning without the downsides of training from scratch.

Adam Stein, Arthur Wayne, Aaditya Naik et al.

Ensuring code correctness remains a challenging problem even as large language models (LLMs) become increasingly capable at code-related tasks. While LLM-based program repair systems can propose bug fixes using only a user's bug report, their effectiveness is fundamentally limited by their ability to perform fault localization (FL), a challenging problem for both humans and LLMs. Existing FL approaches rely on executable test cases, require training on costly and often noisy line-level annotations, or demand resource-intensive LLMs. In this paper, we present Bug Attention Probe (BAP), a method which learns state-of-the-art fault localization without any direct localization labels, outperforming traditional FL baselines and prompting of large-scale LLMs. We evaluate our approach across a variety of code settings, including real-world Java bugs from the standard Defects4J dataset as well as seven other datasets which span a diverse set of bug types and languages. Averaged across all eight datasets, BAP improves by 34.6% top-1 accuracy compared to the strongest baseline and 93.4% over zero-shot prompting GPT-4o. BAP is also significantly more efficient than prompting, outperforming large open-weight models at a small fraction of the computational cost.