VLDB 2026 Research / reviewers in the wild / expert
Sam Owre
dblp:06/503
· DBLP profile ↗
17ranked-venue papers
5as first author
2since 2021 · last 2023
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 14 · 4 first-author · 2 since 2021Theory of computation · 11 · 4 first-author · 2 since 2021Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 3 · 1 first-author · 2 since 2021Security and privacy · 1
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | An Augmented MetiTarski Dataset for Real Quantifier Elimination Using Machine Learning
John Hester, Briland Hitaj, Grant Olney Passmore, Sam Owre, Natarajan Shankar, Eric Yeh |
CICM | 4 |
| 2023 | CoProver: A Recommender System for Proof Construction
Eric Yeh, Briland Hitaj, Sam Owre, Maena Quemener, Natarajan Shankar |
CICM | 3 |
| 2017 | Making PVS Accessible to Generic Services by Interpretation in a Universal Format
Michael Kohlhase, Dennis Müller 0001, Sam Owre, Florian Rabe 0001 |
ITP | 3 |
| 2013 | Tool Integration with the Evidential Tool Bus
Simon Cruanes, Grégoire Hamon, Sam Owre, Natarajan Shankar |
VMCAI | 3 |
| 2012 | Automatic Dimensional Analysis of Cyber-Physical Systems
Sam Owre, Indranil Saha 0001, Natarajan Shankar |
FM | 1 |
| 2004 | SAL 2
Leonardo de Moura 0001, Sam Owre, Harald Ruess, John M. Rushby, Natarajan Shankar, Maria Sorea, Ashish Tiwari 0001 |
CAV | 2 |
| 2001 | ICS: Integrated Canonizer and Solver
Jean-Christophe Filliâtre, Sam Owre, Harald Ruess, Natarajan Shankar |
CAV | 2 |
| 2001 | Incremental Verification by Abstraction
Yassine Lakhnech, Saddek Bensalem, Sergey Berezin, Sam Owre |
TACAS | 4 |
| 2000 | Integrating WS1S with PVS
Sam Owre, Harald Ruess |
CAV | 1 |
| 1998 | Computing Abstractions of Infinite State Systems Compositionally and Automatically
Saddek Bensalem, Yassine Lakhnech, Sam Owre |
CAV | 3 |
| 1998 | InVeST: A Tool for the Verification of Invariants
Saddek Bensalem, Yassine Lakhnech, Sam Owre |
CAV | 3 |
| 1998 | Subtypes for Specifications: Predicate Subtyping in PVSabstractA specification language used in the context of an effective theorem prover can provide novel features that enhance precision and expressiveness. In particular, type checking for the language can exploit the services of the theorem prover. We describe a feature called "predicate subtyping" that uses this capability and illustrate its utility as mechanized in PVS. John M. Rushby, Sam Owre, Natarajan Shankar |
IEEE Trans. Software Eng. | 2 |
| 1996 | PVS: Combining Specification, Proof Checking, and Model Checking
Sam Owre, S. Rajan, John M. Rushby, Natarajan Shankar, Mandayam K. Srivas |
CAV | 1 |
| 1995 | Formal Verification for Fault-Tolerant Architectures: Prolegomena to the Design of PVSabstractPVS is the most recent in a series of verification systems developed at SRI. Its design was strongly influenced, and later refined, by our experiences in developing formal specifications and mechanically checked verifications for the fault-tolerant architecture, algorithms, and implementations of a model "reliable computing platform" (RCP) for life-critical digital flight-control applications, and by a collaborative project to formally verify the design of a commercial avionics processor called AAMP5. Several of the formal specifications and verifications performed in support of RCP and AAMP5 are individually of considerable complexity and difficulty. But in order to contribute to the overall goal, it has often been necessary to modify completed verifications to accommodate changed assumptions or requirements, and people other than the original developer have often needed to understand, review, build on, modify, or extract part of an intricate verification. We outline the verifications performed, present the lessons learned, and describe some of the design decisions taken in PVS to better support these large, difficult, iterative, and collaborative verifications.> Sam Owre, John M. Rushby, Natarajan Shankar, Friedrich W. von Henke |
IEEE Trans. Software Eng. | 1 |
| 1992 | PVS: A Prototype Verification System
Sam Owre, John M. Rushby, Natarajan Shankar |
CADE | 1 |
| 1987 | Muse - A Computer Assisted Verification SystemabstractMuse is a verification system which extends the collection of tools developed by SRI International for their Hierarchical Development Methodology (HDM). It enhances the SRI system by providing a capability for proving invariants and constraints for the state machine described by a specification written in SPECIAL (the specification language of HDM). In particular, it enables one to use the HDM system to meet the requirements for formal verification in a National Computer Security Center A1 evaluation of a secure operating system. In addition to the tools provided by SRI, Muse has a parser, a facility to handle multiple modules, a formula generator, and a theorem prover. The theorem prover has a number of interesting features designed to facilitate human direction of the proving process. In concept, it is open-ended. We introduce the notion of a theorem prover kernel as a device for ensuring the logical soundness of the prover in the face of continual improvements to its functionality. J. Daniel Halpern, Sam Owre, Norman Proctor, William F. Wilson |
IEEE Trans. Software Eng. | 2 |
| 1986 | Muse : A Computer Assisted Verification SystemabstractMuse is a verification system which extends the collection of tools developed by SRI for their Hierarchical Development Methodology (HDM). It enhances the SRI system by providing a capability for proving invariants and constraints for the state machine described by a SPECIAL specification. In particular, it enables one to use the HDM system to meet the requirements for formal verification in a National Computer Security Center Al evaluation of a secure operating system. In addition to the tools provided by SRI, Muse has a parser, a facility to handle multiple modules, a formula generator and a theorem prover. The theorem prover has a number of interesting features designed to facilitate human direction of the proving process. J. Daniel Halpern, Sam Owre, Norman Proctor, William F. Wilson |
S&P | 2 |