Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Yoav Alon
dblp:282/4328
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2022
—ORCID · unresolved
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021
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 · 44% Debugging and program repair · 44% Program analysis · 13% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Debugging and program repair
fault localization |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Using graph neural networks for program termination · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2022 |
Program verification
termination analysis |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Using graph neural networks for program termination · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2022 |
Program analysis
static analysis |
0.2 | 1 | 2022 | Using graph neural networks for program termination · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2022 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
semantic segmentation · 0.6program slicing · 0.6graph neural network · 0.6graph convolutional network · 0.6graph attention network · 0.6
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | Using graph neural networks for program terminationabstractTermination analyses investigate the termination behavior of programs, intending to detect nontermination, which is known to cause a variety of program bugs (e.g. hanging programs, denial-of-service vulnerabilities). Beyond formal approaches, various attempts have been made to estimate the termination behavior of programs using neural networks. However, the majority of these approaches continue to rely on formal methods to provide strong soundness guarantees and consequently suffer from similar limitations. In this paper, we move away from formal methods and embrace the stochastic nature of machine learning models. Instead of aiming for rigorous guarantees that can be interpreted by solvers, our objective is to provide an estimation of a program's termination behavior and of the likely reason for nontermination (when applicable) that a programmer can use for debugging purposes. Compared to previous approaches using neural networks for program termination, we also take advantage of the graph representation of programs by employing Graph Neural Networks. To further assist programmers in understanding and debugging nontermination bugs, we adapt the notions of attention and semantic segmentation, previously used for other application domains, to programs. Overall, we designed and implemented classifiers for program termination based on Graph Convolutional Networks and Graph Attention Networks, as well as a semantic segmentation Graph Neural Network that localizes AST nodes likely to cause nontermination. We also illustrated how the information provided by semantic segmentation can be combined with program slicing to further aid debugging. Yoav Alon, Cristina David |
ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE | 1 |