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

Sander de Putter

dblp:151/0845 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
5ranked-venue papers
5as first author
0since 2021 · last 2020
0000-0002-6819-4011ORCID · verified

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 4 · 4 first-authorTheory of computation · 3 · 3 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.

Theoretical computer science
1 paper
Automated reasoning and model checking · 100%
Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Program verification · 50% Programming languages and type systems · 50%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Automated reasoning and model checking
model checking
0.312018
To Compose, or Not to Compose, That Is the Question: An Analysis of Compositional State Space Generation · FM 2018
Programming languages and type systems › language semantics
compositionality
0.112018
To Compose, or Not to Compose, That Is the Question: An Analysis of Compositional State Space Generation · FM 2018
Program verification › model checking
state space explosion
0.112018
To Compose, or Not to Compose, That Is the Question: An Analysis of Compositional State Space Generation · FM 2018
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2020 Lock and Fence When Needed: State Space Exploration + Static Analysis = Improved Fence and Lock Insertion
Sander de Putter, Anton Wijs
IFM1
2020 Compositional model checking with divergence preserving branching bisimilarity is lively
Sander de Putter, Frédéric Lang, Anton Wijs
Sci. Comput. Program.1
2018 To Compose, or Not to Compose, That Is the Question: An Analysis of Compositional State Space Generation
Sander de Putter, Anton Wijs
FM1
2018 A formal verification technique for behavioural model-to-model transformations
abstract
Abstract In Model Driven Software Engineering, models and model transformations are the primary artifacts when developing a software system. In such a workflow, model transformations are used to incrementally transform initial abstract models into concrete models containing all relevant system details. Over the years, various formal methods have been proposed and further developed to determine the functional correctness of models of concurrent systems. However, the formal verification of model transformations has so far not received as much attention. In this article, we propose a formal verification technique to determine that formalisations of such transformations in the form of rule systems are guaranteed to preserve functional properties, regardless of the models they are applied on. This work extends our earlier work in various ways. Compared to our earlier approaches, the current technique involves only up to n individual checks, with n the number of rules in the rule system, whereas previously, up to 2 n − 1 checks were required. Furthermore, a full correctness proof for the technique is presented, based on a formal proof conducted with the Coq proof assistant. Finally, we report on two sets of conducted experiments. In the first set, we compared traditional model checking with transformation verification, and in the second set, we compared the verification technique presented in this article with the previous version.
Sander de Putter, Anton Wijs
Formal Aspects Comput.1
2016 Verifying a Verifier: On the Formal Correctness of an LTS Transformation Verification Technique
Sander de Putter, Anton Wijs
FASE1