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

Marcel Moosbrugger

dblp:276/0643 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
9ranked-venue papers
5as first author
9since 2021 · last 2025
0000-0002-2006-3741ORCID · 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 · 6 since 2021Theory of computation · 5 · 3 first-author · 5 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.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
2 papers
Program analysis · 48% Program verification · 38% Programming languages and type systems · 14%
Theoretical computer science
2 papers
Automated reasoning and model checking · 50% Algorithms and data structures · 17% Coding theory · 17%

Topics — the 7 heaviest of 9, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Program analysis › static analysis
probabilistic program analysis
1.322024
Strong Invariants Are Hard: On the Hardness of Strongest Polynomial Invariants for (Probabilistic) Programs · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2024
This is the moment for probabilistic loops · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2022
Program verification
invariant generation
0.812024
Strong Invariants Are Hard: On the Hardness of Strongest Polynomial Invariants for (Probabilistic) Programs · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2024
Program verification › invariant generation
polynomial invariants
0.812024
Strong Invariants Are Hard: On the Hardness of Strongest Polynomial Invariants for (Probabilistic) Programs · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2024
Programming languages and type systems
probabilistic programming
0.612022
This is the moment for probabilistic loops · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2022
Program analysis
static analysis
0.612022
This is the moment for probabilistic loops · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2022
Algorithms and data structures › symbolic computation › computational algebra
algebraic algorithms
0.212022
This is the moment for probabilistic loops · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2022
Coding theory › sequences
linear recurrence sequences
0.212022
This is the moment for probabilistic loops · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2022

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

program transformation · 1.1power reduction · 1.1algebraic techniques · 1.1skolem problem reduction · 0.8invariant ideals · 0.8
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 (Un)Solvable loop analysis
abstract
Abstract Automatically generating invariants, key to computer-aided analysis of probabilistic and deterministic programs and compiler optimisation, is a challenging open problem. Whilst the problem is in general undecidable, the goal is settled for restricted classes of loops. For the class of solvable loops, introduced by Rodríguez-Carbonell and Kapur (in: Proceedings of the ISSAC, pp 266–273, 2004), one can automatically compute invariants from closed-form solutions of recurrence equations that model the loop behaviour. In this paper we establish a technique for invariant synthesis for loops that are not solvable, termed unsolvable loops. Our approach automatically partitions the program variables and identifies the so-called defective variables that characterise unsolvability. Herein we consider the following two applications. First, we present a novel technique that automatically synthesises polynomials from defective monomials, that admit closed-form solutions and thus lead to polynomial loop invariants. Second, given an unsolvable loop, we synthesise solvable loops with the following property: the invariant polynomials of the solvable loops are all invariants of the given unsolvable loop. Our implementation and experiments demonstrate both the feasibility and applicability of our approach to both deterministic and probabilistic programs.
Daneshvar Amrollahi, Ezio Bartocci, George Kenison, Laura Kovács, Marcel Moosbrugger, Miroslav Stankovic
Formal Methods Syst. Des.5
2025 Correction: (Un)Solvable loop analysis
abstract
Displayed equation in Definition 71.1 Online version 1.2 Revision L(x, y) = L if x depends linearly on y, and N if x depends nonlinearly on y.L(x, y) ∶= L if x depends linearly on y, and N if x depends non-linearly on y.
Daneshvar Amrollahi, Ezio Bartocci, George Kenison, Laura Kovács, Marcel Moosbrugger, Miroslav Stankovic
Formal Methods Syst. Des.5
2024 Strong Invariants Are Hard: On the Hardness of Strongest Polynomial Invariants for (Probabilistic) Programs
abstract
We show that computing the strongest polynomial invariant for single-path loops with polynomial assignments is at least as hard as the Skolem problem, a famous problem whose decidability has been open for almost a century. While the strongest polynomial invariants are computable for affine loops , for polynomial loops the problem remained wide open. As an intermediate result of independent interest, we prove that reachability for discrete polynomial dynamical systems is Skolem -hard as well. Furthermore, we generalize the notion of invariant ideals and introduce moment invariant ideals for probabilistic programs. With this tool, we further show that the strongest polynomial moment invariant is (i) uncomputable, for probabilistic loops with branching statements, and (ii) Skolem -hard to compute for polynomial probabilistic loops without branching statements. Finally, we identify a class of probabilistic loops for which the strongest polynomial moment invariant is computable and provide an algorithm for it.
Julian Müllner, Marcel Moosbrugger, Laura Kovács
Proc. ACM Program. Lang.2
2023 Automated Sensitivity Analysis for Probabilistic Loops
Marcel Moosbrugger, Julian Müllner, Laura Kovács
iFM1
2022 Solving Invariant Generation for Unsolvable Loops
Daneshvar Amrollahi, Ezio Bartocci, George Kenison, Laura Kovács, Marcel Moosbrugger, Miroslav Stankovic
SAS5
2022 The probabilistic termination tool amber
abstract
We describe the Amber tool for proving and refuting the termination of a class of probabilistic while-programs with polynomial arithmetic, in a fully automated manner. Amber combines martingale theory with properties of asymptotic bounding functions and implements relaxed versions of existing probabilistic termination proof rules to prove/disprove (positive) almost sure termination of probabilistic loops. Amber supports programs parametrized by symbolic constants and drawing from common probability distributions. Our experimental comparisons give practical evidence of Amber outperforming existing state-of-the-art tools.
Marcel Moosbrugger, Ezio Bartocci, Joost-Pieter Katoen, Laura Kovács
Formal Methods Syst. Des.1
2022 This is the moment for probabilistic loops
abstract
We present a novel static analysis technique to derive higher moments for program variables for a large class of probabilistic loops with potentially uncountable state spaces. Our approach is fully automatic, meaning it does not rely on externally provided invariants or templates. We employ algebraic techniques based on linear recurrences and introduce program transformations to simplify probabilistic programs while preserving their statistical properties. We develop power reduction techniques to further simplify the polynomial arithmetic of probabilistic programs and define the theory of moment-computable probabilistic loops for which higher moments can precisely be computed. Our work has applications towards recovering probability distributions of random variables and computing tail probabilities. The empirical evaluation of our results demonstrates the applicability of our work on many challenging examples.
Marcel Moosbrugger, Miroslav Stankovic, Ezio Bartocci, Laura Kovács
Proc. ACM Program. Lang.1
2021 Automated Termination Analysis of Polynomial Probabilistic Programs
abstract
Abstract The termination behavior of probabilistic programs depends on the outcomes of random assignments. Almost sure termination (AST) is concerned with the question whether a program terminates with probability one on all possible inputs. Positive almost sure termination (PAST) focuses on termination in a finite expected number of steps. This paper presents a fully automated approach to the termination analysis of probabilistic while-programs whose guards and expressions are polynomial expressions. As proving (positive) AST is undecidable in general, existing proof rules typically provide sufficient conditions. These conditions mostly involve constraints on supermartingales. We consider four proof rules from the literature and extend these with generalizations of existing proof rules for (P)AST. We automate the resulting set of proof rules by effectively computing asymptotic bounds on polynomials over the program variables. These bounds are used to decide the sufficient conditions – including the constraints on supermartingales – of a proof rule. Our software tool Amber can thus check AST, PAST, as well as their negations for a large class of polynomial probabilistic programs, while carrying out the termination reasoning fully with polynomial witnesses. Experimental results show the merits of our generalized proof rules and demonstrate that Amber can handle probabilistic programs that are out of reach for other state-of-the-art tools.
Marcel Moosbrugger, Ezio Bartocci, Joost-Pieter Katoen, Laura Kovács
ESOP1
2021 The Probabilistic Termination Tool Amber
Marcel Moosbrugger, Ezio Bartocci, Joost-Pieter Katoen, Laura Kovács
FM1