EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Aaron Shim
dblp:207/6540
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2017
—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 analysis · 50% Software maintenance and evolution · 25% Program verification · 25% |
Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Program verification
configuration verification |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Synthesizing configuration file specifications with association rule learning · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2017 |
Software maintenance and evolution
software configuration management |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Synthesizing configuration file specifications with association rule learning · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2017 |
Program analysis
specification mining |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Synthesizing configuration file specifications with association rule learning · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2017 |
Program analysis
static analysis |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Synthesizing configuration file specifications with association rule learning · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2017 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
rule graph analysis · 0.3probabilistic typing · 0.3association rule learning · 0.3
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2017 | Synthesizing configuration file specifications with association rule learningabstractSystem failures resulting from configuration errors are one of the major reasons for the compromised reliability of today's software systems. Although many techniques have been proposed for configuration error detection, these approaches can generally only be applied after an error has occurred. Proactively verifying configuration files is a challenging problem, because 1) software configurations are typically written in poorly structured and untyped “languages”, and 2) specifying rules for configuration verification is challenging in practice. This paper presents ConfigV, a verification framework for general software configurations. Our framework works as follows: in the pre-processing stage, we first automatically derive a specification. Once we have a specification, we check if a given configuration file adheres to that specification. The process of learning a specification works through three steps. First, ConfigV parses a training set of configuration files (not necessarily all correct) into a well-structured and probabilistically-typed intermediate representation. Second, based on the association rule learning algorithm, ConfigV learns rules from these intermediate representations. These rules establish relationships between the keywords appearing in the files. Finally, ConfigV employs rule graph analysis to refine the resulting rules. ConfigV is capable of detecting various configuration errors, including ordering errors, integer correlation errors, type errors, and missing entry errors. We evaluated ConfigV by verifying public configuration files on GitHub, and we show that ConfigV can detect known configuration errors in these files. Mark Santolucito, Ennan Zhai, Rahul Dhodapkar, Aaron Shim, Ruzica Piskac |
Proc. ACM Program. Lang. | 4 |