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

Idan Refaeli

dblp:304/4372 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
5ranked-venue papers
0as first author
5since 2021 · last 2026
—ORCID · none

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 5 · 5 since 2021Theory of computation · 4 · 4 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
3 papers
Trustworthy machine learning · 100%
Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
2 papers
Program verification · 100%
Theoretical computer science
1 paper
Automated reasoning and model checking · 100%

Topics — the 6 heaviest of 8, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
robustness
0.822023
Neural Network Robustness as a Verification Property: A Principled Case Study · CAV (1) 2022
veriFIRE: Verifying an Industrial, Learning-Based Wildfire Detection System · FM 2023
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › robustness
neural network verification
0.812024
Marabou 2.0: A Versatile Formal Analyzer of Neural Networks · CAV (2) 2024
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › verification
robustness verification
0.812024
Marabou 2.0: A Versatile Formal Analyzer of Neural Networks · CAV (2) 2024
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › robustness
adversarial robustness
0.612022
Neural Network Robustness as a Verification Property: A Principled Case Study · CAV (1) 2022
Program verification
neural network verification
0.612022
Neural Network Robustness as a Verification Property: A Principled Case Study · CAV (1) 2022
Program verification › neural network verification
robustness verification
0.612022
Neural Network Robustness as a Verification Property: A Principled Case Study · CAV (1) 2022

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

linear programming · 1.5SMT solving · 1.5verification · 1.1empirical evaluation · 1.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2026 Proof Minimization in Neural Network Verification
Omri Isac, Idan Refaeli, Haoze Wu 0001, Clark W. Barrett, Guy Katz
VMCAI2
2024 Marabou 2.0: A Versatile Formal Analyzer of Neural Networks
abstract
Abstract This paper serves as a comprehensive system description of version 2.0 of the Marabou framework for formal analysis of neural networks. We discuss the tool’s architectural design and highlight the major features and components introduced since its initial release.
Haoze Wu 0001, Omri Isac, Aleksandar Zeljic, Teruhiro Tagomori, Matthew L. Daggitt, Wen Kokke, Idan Refaeli, Guy Amir, Kyle Julian, Shahaf Bassan, Pei Huang 0002, Ori Lahav 0002, Min Wu 0011, Min Zhang 0002, Ekaterina Komendantskaya, Guy Katz, Clark W. Barrett
CAV (2)7
2023 veriFIRE: Verifying an Industrial, Learning-Based Wildfire Detection System
Guy Amir, Ziv Freund, Guy Katz, Elad Mandelbaum, Idan Refaeli
FM5
2023 Formally Explaining Neural Networks within Reactive Systems
Shahaf Bassan, Guy Amir, Davide Corsi, Idan Refaeli, Guy Katz
FMCAD4
2022 Neural Network Robustness as a Verification Property: A Principled Case Study
abstract
Abstract Neural networks are very successful at detecting patterns in noisy data, and have become the technology of choice in many fields. However, their usefulness is hampered by their susceptibility to adversarial attacks . Recently, many methods for measuring and improving a network’s robustness to adversarial perturbations have been proposed, and this growing body of research has given rise to numerous explicit or implicit notions of robustness. Connections between these notions are often subtle, and a systematic comparison between them is missing in the literature. In this paper we begin addressing this gap, by setting up general principles for the empirical analysis and evaluation of a network’s robustness as a mathematical property—during the network’s training phase, its verification, and after its deployment. We then apply these principles and conduct a case study that showcases the practical benefits of our general approach.
Marco Casadio, Ekaterina Komendantskaya, Matthew L. Daggitt, Wen Kokke, Guy Katz, Guy Amir, Idan Refaeli
CAV (1)7