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

Matthias Höschele

dblp:132/4206 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2019
—ORCID · none

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 3 · 1 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
3 papers
Software testing · 61% Program analysis · 39%
Theoretical computer science
1 paper
Automata and formal languages · 100%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Software testing
test generation
0.622019
Parser-directed fuzzing · PLDI 2019
XMLMate: evolutionary XML test generation · SIGSOFT FSE 2014
Software testing
fuzzing
0.412019
Parser-directed fuzzing · PLDI 2019
Program analysis
dynamic analysis
0.212016
Mining input grammars from dynamic taints · ASE 2016
Program analysis › dynamic analysis
input grammar inference
0.212016
Mining input grammars from dynamic taints · ASE 2016
Program analysis › static analysis
taint analysis
0.212016
Mining input grammars from dynamic taints · ASE 2016
Software testing › test generation
search-based test generation
0.212014
XMLMate: evolutionary XML test generation · SIGSOFT FSE 2014
Automata and formal languages › formal grammars
context-free grammar
0.112016
Mining input grammars from dynamic taints · ASE 2016
Software testing › test generation
constraint-based test generation
0.112014
XMLMate: evolutionary XML test generation · SIGSOFT FSE 2014

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

grammar inference · 0.5dynamic tainting · 0.5coverage-guided fuzzing · 0.4recombination · 0.2mutation · 0.2evolutionary search · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2019 Parser-directed fuzzing
abstract
To be effective, software test generation needs to well cover the space of possible inputs. Traditional fuzzing generates large numbers of random inputs, which however are unlikely to contain keywords and other specific inputs of non-trivial input languages. Constraint-based test generation solves conditions of paths leading to uncovered code, but fails on programs with complex input conditions because of path explosion. In this paper, we present a test generation technique specifically directed at input parsers. We systematically produce inputs for the parser and track comparisons made; after every rejection, we satisfy the comparisons leading to rejection. This approach effectively covers the input space: Evaluated on five subjects, from CSV files to JavaScript, our pFuzzer prototype covers more tokens than both random-based and constraint-based approaches, while requiring no symbolic analysis and far fewer tests than random fuzzers.
Björn Mathis, Rahul Gopinath, Michaël Mera, Alexander Kampmann, Matthias Höschele, Andreas Zeller
PLDI5
2016 Mining input grammars from dynamic taints
abstract
Knowing which part of a program processes which parts of an input can reveal the structure of the input as well as the structure of the program. In a URL http://www.example.com/path/ , for instance, the protocol http , the host www.example.com , and the path path would be handled by different functions and stored in different variables. Given a set of sample inputs, we use dynamic tainting to trace the data flow of each input character, and aggregate those input fragments that would be handled by the same function into lexical and syntactical entities. The result is a context-free grammar that reflects valid input structure. In its evaluation, our AUTOGRAM prototype automatically produced readable and structurally accurate grammars for inputs like URLs, spreadsheets or configuration files. The resulting grammars not only allow simple reverse engineering of input formats, but can also directly serve as input for test generators.
Matthias Höschele, Andreas Zeller
ASE1
2014 XMLMate: evolutionary XML test generation
abstract
Generating system inputs satisfying complex constraints is still a challenge for modern test generators. We present XMLMATE, a search-based test generator specially aimed at XML-based systems. XMLMATE leverages program structure, existing XML schemas, and XML inputs to generate, mutate, recombine, and evolve valid XML inputs. Over a set of seven XML-based systems, XMLMATE detected 31 new unique failures in production code, all triggered by system inputs and thus true alarms.
Nikolas Havrikov, Matthias Höschele, Juan P. Galeotti, Andreas Zeller
SIGSOFT FSE2