EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Samuel Drews
dblp:182/9259
· DBLP profile ↗
6ranked-venue papers
4as first author
0since 2021 · last 2020
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 6 · 4 first-authorTheory of computation · 3 · 2 first-author
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.
| Artificial intelligence
3 papers |
Trustworthy machine learning · 74% Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 19% Kernel, tree and ensemble methods · 7% | |
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
4 papers |
Program analysis · 33% Program verification · 31% Program synthesis and code generation · 20% | |
| Theoretical computer science
2 papers |
Logic in computer science · 60% Automated reasoning and model checking · 40% |
Topics — the 15 heaviest of 17, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › robustness
poisoning attack defense |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Proving data-poisoning robustness in decision trees · PLDI 2020 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
robustness |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Proving data-poisoning robustness in decision trees · PLDI 2020 |
Program analysis › static analysis
abstract interpretation |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Proving data-poisoning robustness in decision trees · PLDI 2020 |
Program synthesis and code generation
inductive program synthesis |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Efficient Synthesis with Probabilistic Constraints · CAV (1) 2019 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › fairness
algorithmic fairness |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | FairSquare: probabilistic verification of program fairness · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2017 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
fairness |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | FairSquare: probabilistic verification of program fairness · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2017 |
Program verification › temporal logic verification
fairness verification |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | FairSquare: probabilistic verification of program fairness · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2017 |
Program verification
probabilistic verification |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | FairSquare: probabilistic verification of program fairness · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2017 |
Debugging and program repair
program repair |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Repairing Decision-Making Programs Under Uncertainty · CAV (1) 2017 |
Logic in computer science › proof theory
craig interpolation |
0.2 | 1 | 2016 | Effectively Propositional Interpolants · CAV (2) 2016 |
Automated reasoning and model checking › automated reasoning
interpolation |
0.2 | 1 | 2016 | Effectively Propositional Interpolants · CAV (2) 2016 |
Logic in computer science
proof theory |
0.2 | 1 | 2016 | Effectively Propositional Interpolants · CAV (2) 2016 |
Machine learning › Kernel, tree and ensemble methods
decision tree |
0.1 | 1 | 2020 | Proving data-poisoning robustness in decision trees · PLDI 2020 |
Program analysis › static analysis
probabilistic program analysis |
0.1 | 1 | 2017 | FairSquare: probabilistic verification of program fairness · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2017 |
Program analysis
static analysis |
0.1 | 1 | 2017 | FairSquare: probabilistic verification of program fairness · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2017 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
sound verification · 0.9abstract interpretation · 0.9sample-based synthesis · 0.8property-directed synthesis · 0.8program synthesis · 0.6probabilistic program verification · 0.6constraint solving · 0.6effectively propositional logic · 0.2
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | Proving data-poisoning robustness in decision treesabstractMachine learning models are brittle, and small changes in the training data can result in different predictions. We study the problem of proving that a prediction is robust to data poisoning, where an attacker can inject a number of malicious elements into the training set to influence the learned model. We target decision-tree models, a popular and simple class of machine learning models that underlies many complex learning techniques. We present a sound verification technique based on abstract interpretation and implement it in a tool called Antidote. Antidote abstractly trains decision trees for an intractably large space of possible poisoned datasets. Due to the soundness of our abstraction, Antidote can produce proofs that, for a given input, the corresponding prediction would not have changed had the training set been tampered with or not. We demonstrate the effectiveness of Antidote on a number of popular datasets. Samuel Drews, Aws Albarghouthi, Loris D'Antoni |
PLDI | 1 |
| 2019 | Efficient Synthesis with Probabilistic ConstraintsabstractWe consider the problem of synthesizing a program given a probabilistic specification of its desired behavior. Specifically, we study the recent paradigm of distribution-guided inductive synthesis ( digits ), which iteratively calls a synthesizer on finite sample sets from a given distribution. We make theoretical and algorithmic contributions: ( i ) We prove the surprising result that digits only requires a polynomial number of synthesizer calls in the size of the sample set, despite its ostensibly exponential behavior. ( ii ) We present a property-directed version of digits that further reduces the number of synthesizer calls, drastically improving synthesis performance on a range of benchmarks. Samuel Drews, Aws Albarghouthi, Loris D'Antoni |
CAV (1) | 1 |
| 2017 | Repairing Decision-Making Programs Under Uncertainty
Aws Albarghouthi, Loris D'Antoni, Samuel Drews |
CAV (1) | 3 |
| 2017 | Learning Symbolic Automata
Samuel Drews, Loris D'Antoni |
TACAS (1) | 1 |
| 2017 | FairSquare: probabilistic verification of program fairnessabstractWith the range and sensitivity of algorithmic decisions expanding at a break-neck speed, it is imperative that we aggressively investigate fairness and bias in decision-making programs. First, we show that a number of recently proposed formal definitions of fairness can be encoded as probabilistic program properties. Second, with the goal of enabling rigorous reasoning about fairness, we design a novel technique for verifying probabilistic properties that admits a wide class of decision-making programs. Third, we present FairSquare, the first verification tool for automatically certifying that a program meets a given fairness property. We evaluate FairSquare on a range of decision-making programs. Our evaluation demonstrates FairSquare’s ability to verify fairness for a range of different programs, which we show are out-of-reach for state-of-the-art program analysis techniques. Aws Albarghouthi, Loris D'Antoni, Samuel Drews, Aditya V. Nori |
Proc. ACM Program. Lang. | 3 |
| 2016 | Effectively Propositional Interpolants
Samuel Drews, Aws Albarghouthi |
CAV (2) | 1 |