EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Philipp Schröer
dblp:264/0074
· DBLP profile ↗
6ranked-venue papers
4as first author
5since 2021 · last 2026
0000-0002-4329-530XORCID · verified
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 6 · 4 first-author · 5 since 2021Theory of computation · 4 · 2 first-author · 3 since 2021
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | Caesar: A Deductive Verifier for Probabilistic ProgramsabstractAbstract is a deductive verifier for probabilistic programs. At its core lies , a quantitative intermediate verification language based on the real-valued logic . allows users to express a probabilistic program, its specifications, and proof rules in a programming-language style, so that new proof rules can be easily integrated into the verifier. translates programs into verification conditions, which are then checked using the Z3 SMT solver. It also includes a backend based on probabilistic model checking for a subset of . We report on the results of five years of development of , highlighting its main features and architecture. In particular, we describe recent improvements such as additional proof rules, a model-checking backend, and better diagnostics. Philipp Schröer, Kevin Batz, Umut Yigit Dural, Darion Haase, Benjamin Lucien Kaminski, Joost-Pieter Katoen, Christoph Matheja |
CAV (3) | 1 |
| 2026 | Error Localization, Certificates, and Hints for Probabilistic Program Verification via Slicing
Philipp Schröer, Darion Haase, Joost-Pieter Katoen |
ESOP (2) | 1 |
| 2026 | Highly Incremental: A Simple Programmatic Approach for Many ObjectivesabstractAbstract We present a one-fits-all programmatic approach to reason about a plethora of objectives on probabilistic programs. The first ingredient is to add a reward-statement to the language. We then define a program transformation applying a monotone function to the cumulative reward of the program. The key idea is that this transformation uses incremental differences in the reward. This simple, elegant approach enables to express e.g., higher moments, threshold probabilities of rewards, the expected excess over a budget, and moment-generating functions. All these objectives can now be analyzed using a single existing approach: probabilistic wp-reasoning. We automated verification using the Caesar deductive verifier and report on the application of the transformation to some examples. Philipp Schröer, Joost-Pieter Katoen |
FM (1) | 1 |
| 2023 | A Deductive Verification Infrastructure for Probabilistic ProgramsabstractThis paper presents a quantitative program verification infrastructure for discrete probabilistic programs. Our infrastructure can be viewed as the probabilistic analogue of Boogie: its central components are an intermediate verification language (IVL) together with a real-valued logic. Our IVL provides a programming-language-style for expressing verification conditions whose validity implies the correctness of a program under investigation. As our focus is on verifying quantitative properties such as bounds on expected outcomes, expected run-times, or termination probabilities, off-the-shelf IVLs based on Boolean first-order logic do not suffice. Instead, a paradigm shift from the standard Boolean to a real-valued domain is required. Our IVL features quantitative generalizations of standard verification constructs such as assume- and assert-statements. Verification conditions are generated by a weakest-precondition-style semantics, based on our real-valued logic. We show that our verification infrastructure supports natural encodings of numerous verification techniques from the literature. With our SMT-based implementation, we automatically verify a variety of benchmarks. To the best of our knowledge, this establishes the first deductive verification infrastructure for expectation-based reasoning about probabilistic programs. Philipp Schröer, Kevin Batz, Benjamin Lucien Kaminski, Joost-Pieter Katoen, Christoph Matheja |
Proc. ACM Program. Lang. | 1 |
| 2021 | Latticed k-Induction with an Application to Probabilistic ProgramsabstractAbstract We revisit two well-established verification techniques,k-inductionandbounded model checking(BMC), in the more general setting of fixed point theory over complete lattices. Our main theoretical contribution islatticed k-induction, which (i) generalizes classicalk-induction for verifying transition systems, (ii) generalizes Park induction for bounding fixed points of monotonic maps on complete lattices, and (iii) extends from naturalskto transfinite ordinals $$\kappa $$ κ , thus yielding $$\kappa $$ κ -induction. The lattice-theoretic understanding ofk-induction and BMC enables us to apply both techniques to thefully automatic verification of infinite-state probabilistic programs. Our prototypical implementation manages to automatically verify non-trivial specifications for probabilistic programs taken from the literature that—using existing techniques—cannot be verified without synthesizing a stronger inductive invariant first. Kevin Batz, Mingshuai Chen, Benjamin Lucien Kaminski, Joost-Pieter Katoen, Christoph Matheja, Philipp Schröer |
CAV (2) | 6 |
| 2020 | PrIC3: Property Directed Reachability for MDPsabstractIC3 has been a leap forward in symbolic model checking. This paper proposes PrIC3 (pronounced pricy-three), a conservative extension of IC3 to symbolic model checking of MDPs. Our main focus is to develop the theory underlying PrIC3. Alongside, we present a first implementation of PrIC3 including the key ingredients from IC3 such as generalization, repushing, and propagation. Kevin Batz, Sebastian Junges, Benjamin Lucien Kaminski, Joost-Pieter Katoen, Christoph Matheja, Philipp Schröer |
CAV (2) | 6 |