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

Tsung-Ju Lii

dblp:172/1037 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2016
—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 · 50% Requirements engineering and software design · 50%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Program verification
model checking
0.212016
PAC learning-based verification and model synthesis · ICSE 2016
Requirements engineering and software design › model-driven engineering
model synthesis
0.212016
PAC learning-based verification and model synthesis · ICSE 2016

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

sampling · 0.2PAC learning · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2016 PAC learning-based verification and model synthesis
abstract
We introduce a novel technique for verification and model synthesis of sequential programs. Our technique is based on learning an approximate regular model of the set of feasible paths in a program, and testing whether this model contains an incorrect behavior. Exact learning algorithms require checking equivalence between the model and the program, which is a difficult problem, in general undecidable. Our learning procedure is therefore based on the framework of probably approximately correct (PAC) learning, which uses sampling instead, and provides correctness guarantees expressed using the terms error probability and confidence. Besides the verification result, our procedure also outputs the model with the said correctness guarantees. Obtained preliminary experiments show encouraging results, in some cases even outperforming mature software verifiers.
Yu-Fang Chen 0001, Chiao Hsieh, Ondrej Lengál, Tsung-Ju Lii, Ming-Hsien Tsai 0001, Bow-Yaw Wang, Farn Wang
ICSE4