Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Elia Perantoni
dblp:360/1009
· DBLP profile ↗
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
2since 2021 · last 2024
0009-0004-8658-9211ORCID · corroborated
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 2 · 2 since 2021
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
1 paper |
Trustworthy machine learning · 100% | |
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper |
Program analysis · 50% Software testing · 50% |
Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › robustness
adversarial robustness |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Adversities in Abstract Interpretation - Accommodating Robustness by Abstract Interpretation · ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 2024 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
robustness |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Adversities in Abstract Interpretation - Accommodating Robustness by Abstract Interpretation · ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 2024 |
Program analysis › static analysis
abstract interpretation |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Adversities in Abstract Interpretation - Accommodating Robustness by Abstract Interpretation · ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 2024 |
Software testing
robustness analysis |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Adversities in Abstract Interpretation - Accommodating Robustness by Abstract Interpretation · ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 2024 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
abstract interpretation · 1.5information-flow policies · 0.8information flow policies · 0.8
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | Adversities in Abstract Interpretation - Accommodating Robustness by Abstract InterpretationabstractRobustness is a key and desirable property of any classifying system, in particular, to avoid the ever-rising threat of adversarial attacks. Informally, a classification system is robust when the result is not affected by the perturbation of the input. This notion has been extensively studied, but little attention has been dedicated to how the perturbation affects the classification. The interference between perturbation and classification can manifest in many different ways, and its understanding is the main contribution of the present article. Starting from a rigorous definition of a standard notion of robustness, we build a formal method for accommodating the required degree of robustness—depending on the amount of error the analyst may accept on the classification result. Our idea is to precisely model this error as an abstraction . This leads us to define weakened forms of robustness also in the context of programming languages, particularly in language-based security, e.g., information-flow policies, and in program verification. The latter is possible by moving from a quantitative (standard) model of perturbation to a novel qualitative model, given by means of the notion of abstraction. As in language-based security, we show that it is possible to confine adversities, which means to characterize the degree of perturbation (and/or the degree of class generalization) for which the classifier may be deemed adequately robust. We conclude with an experimental evaluation of our ideas, showing how weakened forms of robustness apply to state-of-the-art image classifiers. Roberto Giacobazzi, Isabella Mastroeni, Elia Perantoni |
ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. | 3 |
| 2023 | How Fitting is Your Abstract Domain?
Roberto Giacobazzi, Isabella Mastroeni, Elia Perantoni |
SAS | 3 |