EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Matthias Höschele
dblp:132/4206
· DBLP profile ↗
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
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Software testing
test generation |
0.6 | 2 | 2019 | Parser-directed fuzzing · PLDI 2019 XMLMate: evolutionary XML test generation · SIGSOFT FSE 2014 |
Software testing
fuzzing |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Parser-directed fuzzing · PLDI 2019 |
Program analysis
dynamic analysis |
0.2 | 1 | 2016 | Mining input grammars from dynamic taints · ASE 2016 |
Program analysis › dynamic analysis
input grammar inference |
0.2 | 1 | 2016 | Mining input grammars from dynamic taints · ASE 2016 |
Program analysis › static analysis
taint analysis |
0.2 | 1 | 2016 | Mining input grammars from dynamic taints · ASE 2016 |
Software testing › test generation
search-based test generation |
0.2 | 1 | 2014 | XMLMate: evolutionary XML test generation · SIGSOFT FSE 2014 |
Automata and formal languages › formal grammars
context-free grammar |
0.1 | 1 | 2016 | Mining input grammars from dynamic taints · ASE 2016 |
Software testing › test generation
constraint-based test generation |
0.1 | 1 | 2014 | 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
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | Parser-directed fuzzingabstractTo 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 |
PLDI | 5 |
| 2016 | Mining input grammars from dynamic taintsabstractKnowing 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 |
ASE | 1 |
| 2014 | XMLMate: evolutionary XML test generationabstractGenerating 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 FSE | 2 |