VLDB 2026 Research / reviewers in the wild / expert
Chinawat Isradisaikul
dblp:130/6626
· DBLP profile ↗
2ranked-venue papers
2as first author
0since 2021 · last 2015
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 2 · 2 first-author
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 |
Programming languages and type systems · 55% Program verification · 36% Program analysis · 8% | |
| Theoretical computer science
1 paper |
Automata and formal languages · 100% |
Topics — the 6 heaviest of 7, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Program verification › model checking
counterexample generation |
0.2 | 1 | 2015 | Finding counterexamples from parsing conflicts · PLDI 2015 |
Automata and formal languages › parsing
parser generation |
0.2 | 1 | 2015 | Finding counterexamples from parsing conflicts · PLDI 2015 |
Automata and formal languages
parsing |
0.2 | 1 | 2015 | Finding counterexamples from parsing conflicts · PLDI 2015 |
Programming languages and type systems
object-oriented programming |
0.2 | 1 | 2013 | Reconciling exhaustive pattern matching with objects · PLDI 2013 |
Programming languages and type systems › control structures
pattern matching |
0.2 | 1 | 2013 | Reconciling exhaustive pattern matching with objects · PLDI 2013 |
Program analysis
static analysis |
0.0 | 1 | 2013 | Reconciling exhaustive pattern matching with objects · PLDI 2013 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
conflict diagnosis · 0.4modal abstraction · 0.2SMT solving · 0.2
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2015 | Finding counterexamples from parsing conflictsabstractWriting a parser remains remarkably painful. Automatic parser generators offer a powerful and systematic way to parse complex grammars, but debugging conflicts in grammars can be time-consuming even for experienced language designers. Better tools for diagnosing parsing conflicts will alleviate this difficulty. This paper proposes a practical algorithm that generates compact, helpful counterexamples for LALR grammars. For each parsing conflict in a grammar, a counterexample demonstrating the conflict is constructed. When the grammar in question is ambiguous, the algorithm usually generates a compact counterexample illustrating the ambiguity. This algorithm has been implemented as an extension to the CUP parser generator. The results from applying this implementation to a diverse collection of faulty grammars show that the algorithm is practical, effective, and suitable for inclusion in other LALR parser generators. Chinawat Isradisaikul, Andrew C. Myers |
PLDI | 1 |
| 2013 | Reconciling exhaustive pattern matching with objectsabstractPattern matching, an important feature of functional languages, is in conflict with data abstraction and extensibility, which are central to object-oriented languages. Modal abstraction offers an integration of deep pattern matching and convenient iteration abstractions into an object-oriented setting; however, because of data abstraction, it is challenging for a compiler to statically verify properties such as exhaustiveness. In this work, we extend modal abstraction in the JMatch language to support static, modular reasoning about exhaustiveness and redundancy. New matching specifications allow these properties to be checked using an SMT solver. We also introduce expressive pattern-matching constructs. Our evaluation shows that these new features enable more concise code and that the performance of checking exhaustiveness and redundancy is acceptable. Chinawat Isradisaikul, Andrew C. Myers |
PLDI | 1 |