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

Bill J. Ellis

dblp:36/2196 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
2as first author
0since 2021 · last 2006
—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-authorArtificial intelligence and machine learning · 1Theory of computation · 1 · 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
1 paper
Program verification · 77% Program analysis · 23%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Program verification › proof assistants
proof automation
0.012003
Automation for Exception Freedom Proofs · ASE 2003
Program analysis › static analysis
abstract interpretation
0.012003
Automation for Exception Freedom Proofs · ASE 2003

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

proof planning · 0.0abstract interpretation · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2006 An Integrated Approach to High Integrity Software Verification
Andrew Ireland, Bill J. Ellis, Andrew Cook, Roderick Chapman, Janet Barnes
J. Autom. Reason.2
2004 An Integration of Program Analysis and Automated Theorem Proving
Bill J. Ellis, Andrew Ireland
IFM1
2003 Automation for Exception Freedom Proofs
abstract
Run-time errors are typically seen as unacceptable within safety and security critical software. The SPARK approach to the development of high integrity software addresses the problem of run-time errors through the use of formal verification. Proofs are constructed to show that each run-time check will never raise an error, thus proving freedom from run-time exceptions. Here we build upon the success of the SPARK approach by increasing the level of automation that can be achieved in proving freedom from exceptions. Our approach is based upon proof planning and a form of abstract interpretation.
Bill J. Ellis, Andrew Ireland
ASE1