Samuel Drews

dblp:182/9259 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › robustness
poisoning attack defense
0.412020
Proving data-poisoning robustness in decision trees · PLDI 2020
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
robustness
0.412020
Proving data-poisoning robustness in decision trees · PLDI 2020
Program analysis › static analysis
abstract interpretation
0.412020
Proving data-poisoning robustness in decision trees · PLDI 2020
Program synthesis and code generation
inductive program synthesis
0.412019
Efficient Synthesis with Probabilistic Constraints · CAV (1) 2019
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › fairness
algorithmic fairness
0.312017
FairSquare: probabilistic verification of program fairness · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2017
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
fairness
0.312017
FairSquare: probabilistic verification of program fairness · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2017
Program verification › temporal logic verification
fairness verification
0.312017
FairSquare: probabilistic verification of program fairness · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2017
Program verification
probabilistic verification
0.312017
FairSquare: probabilistic verification of program fairness · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2017
Debugging and program repair
program repair
0.312017
Repairing Decision-Making Programs Under Uncertainty · CAV (1) 2017
Logic in computer science › proof theory
craig interpolation
0.212016
Effectively Propositional Interpolants · CAV (2) 2016
Automated reasoning and model checking › automated reasoning
interpolation
0.212016
Effectively Propositional Interpolants · CAV (2) 2016
Logic in computer science
proof theory
0.212016
Effectively Propositional Interpolants · CAV (2) 2016
Machine learning › Kernel, tree and ensemble methods
decision tree
0.112020
Proving data-poisoning robustness in decision trees · PLDI 2020
Program analysis › static analysis
probabilistic program analysis
0.112017
FairSquare: probabilistic verification of program fairness · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2017
Program analysis
static analysis
0.112017
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
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2020 Proving data-poisoning robustness in decision trees
abstract
Machine 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
PLDI1
2019 Efficient Synthesis with Probabilistic Constraints
abstract
We 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 fairness
abstract
With 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