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

Melanie Harries

dblp:09/5388 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Program verification › model checking
software model checking
0.112008
Efficient software model checking of soundness of type systems · OOPSLA 2008
Programming languages and type systems › type systems
soundness
0.112008
Efficient software model checking of soundness of type systems · OOPSLA 2008
Programming languages and type systems
type systems
0.112008
Efficient software model checking of soundness of type systems · OOPSLA 2008
Program analysis
state pruning
0.012008
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
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2008 Efficient software model checking of soundness of type systems
abstract
This 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
OOPSLA2