Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Daniel J. Fremont

dblp:144/7602 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
19ranked-venue papers
7as first author
9since 2021 · last 2025
0000-0002-9992-9965ORCID · verified

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 11 · 3 first-author · 5 since 2021Theory of computation · 8 · 3 first-author · 3 since 2021Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 5 · 2 first-author · 2 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 2 · 1 first-authorSystems, architecture and hardware · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 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.

Theoretical computer science
7 papers
Automated reasoning and model checking · 62% Logic in computer science · 26% Approximation and online algorithms · 6%
Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
3 papers
Programming languages and type systems · 81% Program verification · 19%
Artificial intelligence
5 papers
Trustworthy machine learning · 67% Autonomous driving · 12% Motion planning and robot control · 9%
Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
1 paper
Embedded and real-time systems · 100%

Topics — the 22 heaviest of 26, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Programming languages and type systems
domain-specific languages
1.022023
3D Environment Modeling for Falsification and Beyond with Scenic 3.0 · CAV (1) 2023
Scenic: a language for scenario specification and scene generation · PLDI 2019
Programming languages and type systems › probabilistic programming
probabilistic programming language
1.022023
3D Environment Modeling for Falsification and Beyond with Scenic 3.0 · CAV (1) 2023
Scenic: a language for scenario specification and scene generation · PLDI 2019
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › robustness
neural network verification
0.822020
Formal Analysis and Redesign of a Neural Network-Based Aircraft Taxiing System with VerifAI · CAV (1) 2020
VerifAI: A Toolkit for the Formal Design and Analysis of Artificial Intelligence-Based Systems · CAV (1) 2019
Embedded and real-time systems
cyber-physical systems
0.712023
3D Environment Modeling for Falsification and Beyond with Scenic 3.0 · CAV (1) 2023
Logic in computer science
temporal logic
0.712023
3D Environment Modeling for Falsification and Beyond with Scenic 3.0 · CAV (1) 2023
Automated reasoning and model checking › synthesis
program synthesis
0.612022
Randomized Synthesis for Diversity and Cost Constraints with Control Improvisation · CAV (2) 2022
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
robustness
0.412019
VerifAI: A Toolkit for the Formal Design and Analysis of Artificial Intelligence-Based Systems · CAV (1) 2019
Automated reasoning and model checking › hardware verification
simulation-based verification
0.412019
VerifAI: A Toolkit for the Formal Design and Analysis of Artificial Intelligence-Based Systems · CAV (1) 2019
Automated reasoning and model checking
reactive synthesis
0.312018
Reactive Control Improvisation · CAV (1) 2018
Automated reasoning and model checking › model counting
approximate model counting
0.312017
Maximum Model Counting · AAAI 2017
Approximation and online algorithms
approximation algorithms
0.312017
Maximum Model Counting · AAAI 2017
Automated reasoning and model checking
model counting
0.312017
Maximum Model Counting · AAAI 2017
Computational complexity › counting problems
approximate counting
0.212014
Distribution-Aware Sampling and Weighted Model Counting for SAT · AAAI 2014
Automated reasoning and model checking
satisfiability
0.212014
Distribution-Aware Sampling and Weighted Model Counting for SAT · AAAI 2014
Automated reasoning and model checking › model counting
weighted model counting
0.212014
Distribution-Aware Sampling and Weighted Model Counting for SAT · AAAI 2014
Robotics › Motion planning and robot control
robot planning
0.212022
Randomized Synthesis for Diversity and Cost Constraints with Control Improvisation · CAV (2) 2022
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › AI safety
safety assurance
0.112021
Safety in Autonomous Driving: Can Tools Offer Guarantees? · DAC 2021
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction › intelligent control
neural network control
0.112020
Formal Analysis and Redesign of a Neural Network-Based Aircraft Taxiing System with VerifAI · CAV (1) 2020
Robotics › Autonomous driving
perception
0.112020
Formal Analysis and Redesign of a Neural Network-Based Aircraft Taxiing System with VerifAI · CAV (1) 2020
Robotics › Robot navigation and mapping › robot mapping
environment modeling
0.112019
Scenic: a language for scenario specification and scene generation · PLDI 2019
Robotics › Autonomous driving › perception › perception systems
perception evaluation
0.112019
Scenic: a language for scenario specification and scene generation · PLDI 2019
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design
game solving
0.112018
Reactive Control Improvisation · CAV (1) 2018

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

probabilistic programming · 2.4ray tracing · 2.0formal grammar · 2.0automata-based synthesis · 1.5constraint solving · 1.1verification · 1.0synthesis · 1.0runtime assurance · 1.0formal modeling · 1.0retraining · 0.9probabilistic scenario modeling · 0.9falsification · 0.9counterexample analysis · 0.9NP oracle · 0.5temporal-logic falsification · 0.4parameter synthesis · 0.4fuzz testing · 0.4constrained sampling · 0.4
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 LeanLTL: A Unifying Framework for Linear Temporal Logics in Lean (Short Paper)
Eric Vin, Kyle A. Miller, Daniel J. Fremont
ITP3
2023 3D Environment Modeling for Falsification and Beyond with Scenic 3.0
abstract
Abstract We present a major new version of Scenic, a probabilistic programming language for writing formal models of the environments of cyber-physical systems. Scenic has been successfully used for the design and analysis of CPS in a variety of domains, but earlier versions are limited to environments that are essentially two-dimensional. In this paper, we extend Scenic with native support for 3D geometry, introducing new syntax that provides expressive ways to describe 3D configurations while preserving the simplicity and readability of the language. We replace Scenic’s simplistic representation of objects as boxes with precise modeling of complex shapes, including a ray tracing-based visibility system that accounts for object occlusion. We also extend the language to support arbitrary temporal requirements expressed in LTL, and build an extensible Scenic parser generated from a formal grammar of the language. Finally, we illustrate the new application domains these features enable with case studies that would have been impossible to accurately model in Scenic 2.
Eric Vin, Shun Kashiwa, Matthew Rhea, Daniel J. Fremont, Edward Kim 0005, Tommaso Dreossi, Shromona Ghosh, Xiangyu Yue 0001, Alberto L. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, Sanjit A. Seshia
CAV (1)4
2023 Compositional Simulation-Based Analysis of AI-Based Autonomous Systems for Markovian Specifications
Beyazit Yalcinkaya, Hazem Torfah, Daniel J. Fremont, Sanjit A. Seshia
RV3
2023 Scenic: a language for scenario specification and data generation
abstract
Abstract We propose a new probabilistic programming language for the design and analysis of cyber-physical systems, especially those based on machine learning. We consider several problems arising in the design process, including training a system to be robust to rare events, testing its performance under different conditions, and debugging failures. We show how a probabilistic programming language can help address these problems by specifying distributions encoding interesting types of inputs, then sampling these to generate specialized training and test data. More generally, such languages can be used to write environment models, an essential prerequisite to any formal analysis. In this paper, we focus on systems such as autonomous cars and robots, whose environment at any point in time is a scene , a configuration of physical objects and agents. We design a domain-specific language, Scenic , for describing scenarios that are distributions over scenes and the behaviors of their agents over time. Scenic combines concise, readable syntax for spatiotemporal relationships with the ability to declaratively impose hard and soft constraints over the scenario. We develop specialized techniques for sampling from the resulting distribution, taking advantage of the structure provided by Scenic ’s domain-specific syntax. Finally, we apply Scenic in multiple case studies for training, testing, and debugging neural networks for perception both as standalone components and within the context of a full cyber-physical system.
Daniel J. Fremont, Edward Kim 0005, Tommaso Dreossi, Shromona Ghosh, Xiangyu Yue 0001, Alberto L. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, Sanjit A. Seshia
Mach. Learn.1
2023 Guest Editorial: Special issue on robust machine learning
Ransalu Senanayake, Daniel J. Fremont, Mykel J. Kochenderfer, Alessio Lomuscio, Dragos D. Margineantu, Cheng Soon Ong
Mach. Learn.2
2022 Randomized Synthesis for Diversity and Cost Constraints with Control Improvisation
abstract
Abstract In many synthesis problems, it can be essential to generate implementations which not only satisfy functional constraints but are also randomized to improve variety, robustness, or unpredictability. The recently-proposed framework of control improvisation (CI) provides techniques for the correct-by-construction synthesis of randomized systems subject to hard and soft constraints. However, prior work on CI has focused on qualitative specifications, whereas in robotic planning and other areas we often have quantitative quality metrics which can be traded against each other. For example, a designer of a patrolling security robot might want to know by how much the average patrol time needs to be increased in order to ensure that a particular aspect of the robot’s route is sufficiently diverse and hence unpredictable. In this paper, we enable this type of application by generalizing the CI problem to support quantitative soft constraints which bound the expected value of a given cost function, and randomness constraints which enforce diversity of the generated traces with respect to a given label function. We establish the basic theory of labelled quantitative CI problems, and develop efficient algorithms for solving them when the specifications are encoded by finite automata. We also provide an approximate improvisation algorithm based on constraint solving for any specifications encodable as Boolean formulas. We demonstrate the utility of our problem formulation and algorithms with experiments applying them to generate diverse near-optimal plans for robotic planning problems.
Andreas Gittis, Eric Vin, Daniel J. Fremont
CAV (2)3
2021 Safety in Autonomous Driving: Can Tools Offer Guarantees?
abstract
Persistent challenges in making autonomous vehicles safe and reliable have hampered their widespread deployment. We believe that formal methods will play an essential role in the enterprise of ensuring AV safety by providing tools for the modeling, verification, synthesis, and runtime assurance of AV systems. In this paper, we outline the progress we and others have made towards this goal, and the challenges that remain.
Daniel J. Fremont, Alberto L. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, Sanjit A. Seshia
DAC1
2021 Formal Analysis of AI-Based Autonomy: From Modeling to Runtime Assurance
Hazem Torfah, Sebastian Junges, Daniel J. Fremont, Sanjit A. Seshia
RV3
2021 Parallel and Multi-objective Falsification with Scenic and VerifAI
Kesav Viswanadha, Edward Kim 0005, Francis Indaheng, Daniel J. Fremont, Sanjit A. Seshia
RV4
2020 Formal Analysis and Redesign of a Neural Network-Based Aircraft Taxiing System with VerifAI
abstract
We demonstrate a unified approach to rigorous design of safety-critical autonomous systems using the VerifAI toolkit for formal analysis of AI-based systems. VerifAI provides an integrated toolchain for tasks spanning the design process, including modeling, falsification, debugging, and ML component retraining. We evaluate all of these applications in an industrial case study on an experimental autonomous aircraft taxiing system developed by Boeing, which uses a neural network to track the centerline of a runway. We define runway scenarios using the Scenic probabilistic programming language, and use them to drive tests in the X-Plane flight simulator. We first perform falsification, automatically finding environment conditions causing the system to violate its specification by deviating significantly from the centerline (or even leaving the runway entirely). Next, we use counterexample analysis to identify distinct failure cases, and confirm their root causes with specialized testing. Finally, we use the results of falsification and debugging to retrain the network, eliminating several failure cases and improving the overall performance of the closed-loop system.
Daniel J. Fremont, Johnathan Chiu, Dragos D. Margineantu, Denis Osipychev, Sanjit A. Seshia
CAV (1)1
2019 VerifAI: A Toolkit for the Formal Design and Analysis of Artificial Intelligence-Based Systems
abstract
We present VerifAI , a software toolkit for the formal design and analysis of systems that include artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) components. VerifAI particularly addresses challenges with applying formal methods to ML components such as perception systems based on deep neural networks, as well as systems containing them, and to model and analyze system behavior in the presence of environment uncertainty. We describe the initial version of VerifAI , which centers on simulation-based verification and synthesis, guided by formal models and specifications. We give examples of several use cases, including temporal-logic falsification, model-based systematic fuzz testing, parameter synthesis, counterexample analysis, and data set augmentation.
Tommaso Dreossi, Daniel J. Fremont, Shromona Ghosh, Edward Kim 0005, Hadi Ravanbakhsh, Marcell Vazquez-Chanlatte, Sanjit A. Seshia
CAV (1)2
2019 Scenic: a language for scenario specification and scene generation
abstract
We propose a new probabilistic programming language for the design and analysis of perception systems, especially those based on machine learning. Specifically, we consider the problems of training a perception system to handle rare events, testing its performance under different conditions, and debugging failures. We show how a probabilistic programming language can help address these problems by specifying distributions encoding interesting types of inputs and sampling these to generate specialized training and test sets. More generally, such languages can be used for cyber-physical systems and robotics to write environment models, an essential prerequisite to any formal analysis. In this paper, we focus on systems like autonomous cars and robots, whose environment is a scene, a configuration of physical objects and agents. We design a domain-specific language, Scenic, for describing scenarios that are distributions over scenes. As a probabilistic programming language, Scenic allows assigning distributions to features of the scene, as well as declaratively imposing hard and soft constraints over the scene. We develop specialized techniques for sampling from the resulting distribution, taking advantage of the structure provided by Scenic's domain-specific syntax. Finally, we apply Scenic in a case study on a convolutional neural network designed to detect cars in road images, improving its performance beyond that achieved by state-of-the-art synthetic data generation methods.
Daniel J. Fremont, Tommaso Dreossi, Shromona Ghosh, Xiangyu Yue 0001, Alberto L. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, Sanjit A. Seshia
PLDI1
2018 Formal Specification for Deep Neural Networks
Sanjit A. Seshia, Ankush Desai, Tommaso Dreossi, Daniel J. Fremont, Shromona Ghosh, Edward Kim 0005, Sumukh Shivakumar, Marcell Vazquez-Chanlatte, Xiangyu Yue 0001
ATVA4
2018 Reactive Control Improvisation
abstract
Reactive synthesis is a paradigm for automatically building correct-by-construction systems that interact with an unknown or adversarial environment. We study how to do reactive synthesis when part of the specification of the system is that its behavior should be random. Randomness can be useful, for example, in a network protocol fuzz tester whose output should be varied, or a planner for a surveillance robot whose route should be unpredictable. However, existing reactive synthesis techniques do not provide a way to ensure random behavior while maintaining functional correctness. Towards this end, we generalize the recently-proposed framework of control improvisation (CI) to add reactivity. The resulting framework of reactive control improvisation provides a natural way to integrate a randomness requirement with the usual functional specifications of reactive synthesis over a finite window. We theoretically characterize when such problems are realizable, and give a general method for solving them. For specifications given by reachability or safety games or by deterministic finite automata, our method yields a polynomial-time synthesis algorithm. For various other types of specifications including temporal logic formulas, we obtain a polynomial-space algorithm and prove matching $$\mathsf {PSPACE}$$ -hardness results. We show that all of these randomized variants of reactive synthesis are no harder in a complexity-theoretic sense than their non-randomized counterparts.
Daniel J. Fremont, Sanjit A. Seshia
CAV (1)1
2017 Maximum Model Counting
abstract
We introduce the problem Max#SAT, an extension of model counting (#SAT). Given a formula over sets of variables X, Y, and Z, the Max#SAT problem is to maximize over the variables X the number of assignments to Y that can be extended to a solution with some assignment to Z. We demonstrate that Max#SAT has applications in many areas, showing how it can be used to solve problems in probabilistic inference (marginal MAP), planning, program synthesis, and quantitative information flow analysis. We also give an algorithm which by making only polynomially many calls to an NP oracle can approximate the maximum count to within any desired multiplicative error. The NP queries needed are relatively simple, arising from recent practical approximate model counting and sampling algorithms, which allows our technique to be effectively implemented with a SAT solver. Through several experiments we show that our approach can be successfully applied to interesting problems.
Daniel J. Fremont, Markus N. Rabe, Sanjit A. Seshia
AAAI1
2016 On the Hardness of SAT with Community Structure
Nathan Mull, Daniel J. Fremont, Sanjit A. Seshia
SAT2
2015 Control Improvisation
abstract
We formalize and analyze a new automata-theoretic problem termed control improvisation. Given an automaton, the problem is to produce an improviser, a probabilistic algorithm that randomly generates words in its language, subject to two additional constraints: the satisfaction of an admissibility predicate, and the exhibition of a specified amount of randomness. Control improvisation has multiple applications, including, for example, generating musical improvisations that satisfy rhythmic and melodic constraints, where admissibility is determined by some bounded divergence from a reference melody. We analyze the complexity of the control improvisation problem, giving cases where it is efficiently solvable and cases where it is #P-hard or undecidable. We also show how symbolic techniques based on Boolean satisfiability (SAT) solvers can be used to approximately solve some of the intractable cases.
Daniel J. Fremont, Alexandre Donzé, Sanjit A. Seshia, David Wessel
FSTTCS1
2015 On Parallel Scalable Uniform SAT Witness Generation
Supratik Chakraborty, Daniel J. Fremont, Kuldeep S. Meel, Sanjit A. Seshia, Moshe Y. Vardi
TACAS2
2014 Distribution-Aware Sampling and Weighted Model Counting for SAT
abstract
Given a CNF formula and a weight for each assignment of values tovariables, two natural problems are weighted model counting anddistribution-aware sampling of satisfying assignments. Both problems have a wide variety of important applications. Due to the inherentcomplexity of the exact versions of the problems, interest has focusedon solving them approximately. Prior work in this area scaled only tosmall problems in practice, or failed to provide strong theoreticalguarantees, or employed a computationally-expensive most-probable-explanation ({\MPE}) queries that assumes prior knowledge of afactored representation of the weight distribution. We identify a novel parameter,\emph{tilt}, which is the ratio of the maximum weight of satisfying assignment to minimum weightof satisfying assignment and present anovel approach that works with a black-box oracle for weights ofassignments and requires only an {\NP}-oracle (in practice, a {\SAT}-solver) to solve both thecounting and sampling problems when the tilt is small. Our approach provides strong theoretical guarantees, and scales toproblems involving several thousand variables. We also show that theassumption of small tilt can be significantly relaxed while improving computational efficiency if a factored representation of the weights is known.
Supratik Chakraborty, Daniel J. Fremont, Kuldeep S. Meel, Sanjit A. Seshia, Moshe Y. Vardi
AAAI2