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

Ishrak Hayet

dblp:339/2551 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
2as first author
2since 2021 · last 2025
0000-0001-6610-3422ORCID · corroborated

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 2 · 2 first-author · 2 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
2 papers
Program analysis · 49% Software testing · 24% Programming languages and type systems · 21%

Topics — the 6 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Software testing › test oracle
test oracle generation
0.912025
ChatAssert: LLM-Based Test Oracle Generation With External Tools Assistance · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2025
Program analysis
dynamic analysis
0.812024
Feedback-Directed Partial Execution · ISSTA 2024
Program analysis › dynamic analysis
partial code execution
0.812024
Feedback-Directed Partial Execution · ISSTA 2024
Programming languages and type systems
type inference
0.812024
Feedback-Directed Partial Execution · ISSTA 2024
Program analysis
static analysis
0.312025
ChatAssert: LLM-Based Test Oracle Generation With External Tools Assistance · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2025
Program synthesis and code generation
code completion
0.212024
Feedback-Directed Partial Execution · ISSTA 2024

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

static analysis · 0.9prompt engineering · 0.9large language model · 0.9dynamic analysis · 0.9feedback-directed execution · 0.8error pattern matching · 0.8
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 ChatAssert: LLM-Based Test Oracle Generation With External Tools Assistance
abstract
Test oracle generation is an important and challenging problem. Neural-based solutions have been recently proposed for oracle generation but they are still inaccurate. For example, the accuracy of the state-of-the-art techniquetecois only 27.5% on its dataset including 3,540 test cases. We proposeChatAssert, a prompt engineering framework designed for oracle generation that uses dynamic and static information to iteratively refine prompts for querying large language models (LLMs).ChatAssertuses code summaries and examples to assist an LLM in generating candidate test oracles, uses a lightweight static analysis to assist the LLM in repairing generated oracles that fail to compile, and uses dynamic information obtained from test runs to help the LLM in repairing oracles that compile but do not pass. Experimental results using an independent publicly-available dataset show thatChatAssertimproves the state-of-the-art technique,teco, on key evaluation metrics. For example, it improvesAcc@1by 15%. Overall, results provide initial yet strong evidence that using external tools in the formulation of prompts is an important aid in LLM-based oracle generation.
Ishrak Hayet, Adam Scott, Marcelo d'Amorim
IEEE Trans. Software Eng.1
2024 Feedback-Directed Partial Execution
abstract
Partial code execution is the problem of executing code with missing definitions. The problem has gained recent traction as solutions to the problem could enable various downstream analyses. We propose feedback-directed partial execution, a technique supported by a tool, named Incompleter, that uses the error feedback from executions to enable partial code execution. Incompleter builds on the observation that errors observed during the execution of incomplete snippets often follow similar error patterns. Incompleter takes an incomplete snippet as input and applies rules (e.g., add class, add field, add file, etc.) to resolve the successive dynamic errors it encounters during execution of the snippet. Incompleter stops when the snippet successfully executes or when it reaches certain bounds. Our results indicate that Incompleter outperforms LExecutor, the state-of-the-art in partial execution. For example, considering a dataset of 4.7K incomplete StackOverflow snippets, Incompleter enables the execution of 10% more code snippets compared to LExecutor and covers 23% more statements. We also show that Incompleter’s type inference significantly improves over LExecutor’s type inference, with a 37% higher F1 score.
Ishrak Hayet, Adam Scott, Marcelo d'Amorim
ISSTA1