Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Melanie Harries
dblp:09/5388
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2008
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1
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
1 paper |
Programming languages and type systems · 61% Program verification · 30% Program analysis · 9% |
Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Program verification › model checking
software model checking |
0.1 | 1 | 2008 | Efficient software model checking of soundness of type systems · OOPSLA 2008 |
Programming languages and type systems › type systems
soundness |
0.1 | 1 | 2008 | Efficient software model checking of soundness of type systems · OOPSLA 2008 |
Programming languages and type systems
type systems |
0.1 | 1 | 2008 | Efficient software model checking of soundness of type systems · OOPSLA 2008 |
Program analysis
state pruning |
0.0 | 1 | 2008 | Efficient software model checking of soundness of type systems · OOPSLA 2008 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
state space pruning · 0.1small-step operational semantics · 0.1
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 | Efficient software model checking of soundness of type systemsabstractThis paper presents novel techniques for checking the soundness of a type system automatically using a software model checker. Our idea is to systematically generate every type correct intermediate program state (within some finite bounds), execute the program one step forward if possible using its small step operational semantics, and then check that the resulting intermediate program state is also type correct--but do so efficiently by detecting similarities in this search space and pruning away large portions of the search space. Thus, given only a specification of type correctness and the small step operational semantics for a language, our system automatically checks type soundness by checking that the progress and preservation theorems hold for the language (albeit for program states of at most some finite size). Our preliminary experimental results on several languages--including a language of integer and boolean expressions, a simple imperative programming language, an object-oriented language which is a subset of Java, and a language with ownership types--indicate that our approach is feasible and that our search space pruning techniques do indeed significantly reduce what is otherwise an extremely large search space. Our paper thus makes contributions both in the area of checking soundness of type systems, and in the area of reducing the state space of a software model checker. Michael Roberson, Melanie Harries, Paul T. Darga, Chandrasekhar Boyapati |
OOPSLA | 2 |