Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Sarah M. Loos
dblp:10/9798
· DBLP profile ↗
10ranked-venue papers
4as first author
1since 2021 · last 2021
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 4 · 1 first-authorSoftware engineering, systems software and programming languages · 4 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021Theory of computation · 4 · 4 first-authorGraphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Theoretical computer science
3 papers |
Automated reasoning and model checking · 74% Logic in computer science · 26% | |
| Artificial intelligence
2 papers |
Language models and text generation · 50% Graph learning · 25% Knowledge representation and reasoning · 25% | |
| Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
2 papers |
Embedded and real-time systems · 55% Electronic design automation · 46% |
Topics — the 16 heaviest of 16, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Automated reasoning and model checking › theorem proving
higher-order logic theorem proving |
0.8 | 2 | 2020 | Graph Representations for Higher-Order Logic and Theorem Proving · AAAI 2020 HOList: An Environment for Machine Learning of Higher Order Logic Theorem Proving · ICML 2019 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
automated reasoning |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Mathematical Reasoning in Latent Space · ICLR 2020 |
Machine learning › Graph learning
graph neural network |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Graph Representations for Higher-Order Logic and Theorem Proving · AAAI 2020 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › large language model reasoning › inference-time reasoning
latent reasoning |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Mathematical Reasoning in Latent Space · ICLR 2020 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
mathematical reasoning |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Mathematical Reasoning in Latent Space · ICLR 2020 |
Automated reasoning and model checking
theorem proving |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Graph Representations for Higher-Order Logic and Theorem Proving · AAAI 2020 |
Automated reasoning and model checking
automated theorem proving |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | HOList: An Environment for Machine Learning of Higher Order Logic Theorem Proving · ICML 2019 |
Logic in computer science › modal logic › dynamic logic
differential dynamic logic |
0.2 | 1 | 2016 | Differential Refinement Logic · LICS 2016 |
Automated reasoning and model checking
hybrid systems verification |
0.2 | 1 | 2016 | Differential Refinement Logic · LICS 2016 |
Logic in computer science
modal logic |
0.2 | 1 | 2016 | Differential Refinement Logic · LICS 2016 |
Automated reasoning and model checking
program verification |
0.2 | 1 | 2016 | Differential Refinement Logic · LICS 2016 |
Logic in computer science
proof theory |
0.2 | 1 | 2016 | Differential Refinement Logic · LICS 2016 |
Electronic design automation › hardware verification and test
formal verification |
0.1 | 1 | 2011 | Adaptive Cruise Control: Hybrid, Distributed, and Now Formally Verified · FM 2011 |
Embedded and real-time systems
cyber-physical systems |
0.1 | 1 | 2016 | Differential Refinement Logic · LICS 2016 |
Embedded and real-time systems › cyber-physical system platforms
hybrid systems |
0.1 | 1 | 2016 | Differential Refinement Logic · LICS 2016 |
Program verification › reactive system verification
hybrid system verification |
0.0 | 1 | 2011 | Adaptive Cruise Control: Hybrid, Distributed, and Now Formally Verified · FM 2011 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
graph neural network · 0.9theorem proving · 0.5refinement relations · 0.5latent space reasoning · 0.4deep reinforcement learning · 0.4HOL Light · 0.4formal verification · 0.2
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | Correction to: How to model and prove hybrid systems with KeYmaera: a tutorial on safety
Jan-David Quesel, Stefan Mitsch, Sarah M. Loos, Nikos Aréchiga, André Platzer |
Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. | 3 |
| 2020 | Graph Representations for Higher-Order Logic and Theorem ProvingabstractThis paper presents the first use of graph neural networks (GNNs) for higher-order proof search and demonstrates that GNNs can improve upon state-of-the-art results in this domain. Interactive, higher-order theorem provers allow for the formalization of most mathematical theories and have been shown to pose a significant challenge for deep learning. Higher-order logic is highly expressive and, even though it is well-structured with a clearly defined grammar and semantics, there still remains no well-established method to convert formulas into graph-based representations. In this paper, we consider several graphical representations of higher-order logic and evaluate them against the HOList benchmark for higher-order theorem proving. Aditya Paliwal, Sarah M. Loos, Markus N. Rabe, Kshitij Bansal, Christian Szegedy |
AAAI | 2 |
| 2020 | Mathematical Reasoning in Latent Space
Dennis Lee 0003, Christian Szegedy, Markus N. Rabe, Sarah M. Loos, Kshitij Bansal |
ICLR | 4 |
| 2019 | HOList: An Environment for Machine Learning of Higher Order Logic Theorem ProvingabstractWe present an environment, benchmark, and deep learning driven automated theorem prover for higher-order logic. Higher-order interactive theorem provers enable the formalization of arbitrary mathematical theories and thereby present an interesting challenge for deep learning. We provide an open-source framework based on the HOL Light theorem prover that can be used as a reinforcement learning environment. HOL Light comes with a broad coverage of basic mathematical theorems on calculus and the formal proof of the Kepler conjecture, from which we derive a challenging benchmark for automated reasoning approaches. We also present a deep reinforcement learning driven automated theorem prover, DeepHOL, that gives strong initial results on this benchmark. Kshitij Bansal, Sarah M. Loos, Markus N. Rabe, Christian Szegedy, Stewart Wilcox |
ICML | 2 |
| 2017 | Deep Network Guided Proof SearchabstractDeep learning techniques lie at the heart of several significant AI advances in recent years including object recognition and detection, image captioning, machine translation, speech recognition and synthesis, and playing the game of Go. Automated first-order theorem provers can aid in the formalization and verification of mathematical theorems and play a crucial role in program analysis, theory reasoning, security, interpolation, and system verification. Here we suggest deep learning based guidance in the proof search of the theorem prover E. We train and compare several deep neural network models on the traces of existing ATP proofs of Mizar statements and use them to select processed clauses during proof search. We give experimental evidence that with a hybrid, two-phase approach, deep learning based guidance can significantly reduce the average number of proof search steps while increasing the number of theorems proved. Using a few proof guidance strategies that leverage deep neural networks, we have found first-order proofs of 7.36% of the first-order logic translations of the Mizar Mathematical Library theorems that did not previously have ATP generated proofs. This increases the ratio of statements in the corpus with ATP generated proofs from 56% to 59%. Sarah M. Loos, Geoffrey Irving, Christian Szegedy, Cezary Kaliszyk |
LPAR | 1 |
| 2016 | Differential Refinement LogicabstractWe introduce differential refinement logic (dRL), a logic with first-class support for refinement relations on hybrid systems, and a proof calculus for verifying such relations. dRL simultaneously solves several seemingly different challenges common in theorem proving for hybrid systems: 1. When hybrid systems are complicated, it is useful to prove properties about simpler and related subsystems before tackling the system as a whole. 2. Some models of hybrid systems can be implementation-specific. Verification can be aided by abstracting the system down to the core components necessary for safety, but only if the relations between the abstraction and the original system can be guaranteed. 3. One approach to taming the complexities of hybrid systems is to start with a simplified version of the system and iteratively expand it. However, this approach can be costly, since every iteration has to be proved safe from scratch, unless refinement relations can be leveraged in the proof. 4. When proofs become large, it is difficult to maintain a modular or comprehensible proof structure. By using a refinement relation to arrange proofs hierarchically according to the structure of natural subsystems, we can increase the readability and modularity of the resulting proof. dRL extends an existing specification and verification language for hybrid systems (differential dynamic logic, dL) by adding a refinement relation to directly compare hybrid systems. This paper gives a syntax, semantics, and proof calculus for dRL. We demonstrate its usefulness with examples where using refinement results in easier and better-structured proofs. Sarah M. Loos, André Platzer |
LICS | 1 |
| 2016 | How to model and prove hybrid systems with KeYmaera: a tutorial on safetyabstractAbstract This paper is a tutorial on how to model hybrid systems as hybrid programs in differential dynamic logic and how to prove complex properties about these complex hybrid systems in KeYmaera, an automatic and interactive formal verification tool for hybrid systems. Hybrid systems can model highly nontrivial controllers of physical plants, whose behaviors are often safety critical such as trains, cars, airplanes, or medical devices. Formal methods can help design systems that work correctly. This paper illustrates how KeYmaera can be used to systematically model, validate, and verify hybrid systems. We develop tutorial examples that illustrate challenges arising in many real-world systems. In the context of this tutorial, we identify the impact that modeling decisions have on the suitability of the model for verification purposes. We show how the interactive features of KeYmaera can help users understand their system designs better and prove complex properties for which the automatic prover of KeYmaera still takes an impractical amount of time. We hope this paper is a helpful resource for designers of embedded and cyber–physical systems and that it illustrates how to master common practical challenges in hybrid systems verification. Jan-David Quesel, Stefan Mitsch, Sarah M. Loos, Nikos Aréchiga, André Platzer |
Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. | 3 |
| 2013 | Formal verification of distributed aircraft controllersabstractAs airspace becomes ever more crowded, air traffic management must reduce both space and time between aircraft to increase throughput, making on-board collision avoidance systems ever more important. These safety-critical systems must be extremely reliable, and as such, many resources are invested into ensuring that the protocols they implement are accurate. Still, it is challenging to guarantee that such a controller works properly under every circumstance. In tough scenarios where a large number of aircraft must execute a collision avoidance maneuver, a human pilot under stress is not necessarily able to understand the complexity of the distributed system and may not take the right course, especially if actions must be taken quickly. We consider a class of distributed collision avoidance controllers designed to work even in environments with arbitrarily many aircraft or UAVs. We prove that the controllers never allow the aircraft to get too close to one another, even when new planes approach an in-progress avoidance maneuver that the new plane may not be aware of. Because these safety guarantees always hold, the aircraft are protected against unexpected emergent behavior which simulation and testing may miss. This is an important step in formally verified, flyable, and distributed air traffic control. Sarah M. Loos, David W. Renshaw, André Platzer |
HSCC | 1 |
| 2011 | Adaptive Cruise Control: Hybrid, Distributed, and Now Formally Verified
Sarah M. Loos, André Platzer, Ligia Nistor |
FM | 1 |
| 2011 | Distributed Theorem Proving for Distributed Hybrid Systems
David W. Renshaw, Sarah M. Loos, André Platzer |
ICFEM | 2 |