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

Eva May

dblp:149/2747 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2015
—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
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 › invariant generation
loop invariant generation
0.212015
Inferring Loop Invariants by Mutation, Dynamic Analysis, and Static Checking · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2015
Program analysis
dynamic analysis
0.112015
Inferring Loop Invariants by Mutation, Dynamic Analysis, and Static Checking · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2015

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

static checking · 0.2mutation · 0.2dynamic analysis · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2015 Inferring Loop Invariants by Mutation, Dynamic Analysis, and Static Checking
abstract
Verifiers that can prove programs correct against their full functional specification require, for programs with loops, additional annotations in the form of loop invariants-properties that hold for every iteration of a loop. We show that significant loop invariant candidates can be generated by systematically mutating postconditions; then, dynamic checking (based on automatically generated tests) weeds out invalid candidates, and static checking selects provably valid ones. We present a framework that automatically applies these techniques to support a program prover, paving the way for fully automatic verification without manually written loop invariants: Applied to 28 methods (including 39 different loops) from various java.util classes (occasionally modified to avoid using Java features not fully supported by the static checker), our DYNAMATE prototype automatically discharged 97 percent of all proof obligations, resulting in automatic complete correctness proofs of 25 out of the 28 methods-outperforming several state-of-the-art tools for fully automatic verification.
Juan P. Galeotti, Carlo A. Furia, Eva May, Gordon Fraser 0001, Andreas Zeller
IEEE Trans. Software Eng.3