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.

Dxo

dblp:381/9720 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2024
—ORCID · none

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 2021Theory of computation · 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 analysis · 50% Program verification · 50%
Network and information security
1 paper
Blockchain and cryptocurrency security · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Program verification › equivalence checking
semantic equivalence checking
0.812024
Hevm, a Fast Symbolic Execution Framework for EVM Bytecode · CAV (1) 2024
Program analysis
symbolic execution
0.812024
Hevm, a Fast Symbolic Execution Framework for EVM Bytecode · CAV (1) 2024
Blockchain and cryptocurrency security › smart contract analysis
smart contract verification
0.212024
Hevm, a Fast Symbolic Execution Framework for EVM Bytecode · CAV (1) 2024

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

symbolic execution · 1.5
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2024 Hevm, a Fast Symbolic Execution Framework for EVM Bytecode
abstract
Abstract We present , a symbolic execution engine for the EVM. can prove safety properties for EVM bytecode or verify semantic equivalence between two bytecode objects. It exposes a user-friendly API in Solidity that allows end-users to define symbolic tests using almost the same syntax as they would for their usual unit tests. We evaluate our framework against state-of-the-art tools, using a comprehensive set of benchmarks. Our empirical findings demonstrate that outperforms its counterparts, effectively solving a greater number of problems within competitive time frames.
Dxo, Mate Soos, Zoe Paraskevopoulou, Martin Lundfall, Mikael Brockman
CAV (1)1