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

Graham Hughes

dblp:52/3183 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
3as first author
0since 2021 · last 2008
—ORCID · none

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 3 · 3 first-author

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 verification · 73% Requirements engineering and software design · 21% Programming languages and type systems · 6%
Theoretical computer science
1 paper
Automata and formal languages · 100%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Program verification › model checking
software model checking
0.222008
Interface Grammars for Modular Software Model Checking · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2008
Interface grammars for modular software model checking · ISSTA 2007
Requirements engineering and software design › specification
interface specification
0.112007
Interface grammars for modular software model checking · ISSTA 2007
Program verification
modular verification
0.112007
Interface grammars for modular software model checking · ISSTA 2007
Automata and formal languages › formal grammars
context-free grammar
0.112007
Interface grammars for modular software model checking · ISSTA 2007

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

stub generation · 0.2JPF model checker · 0.2table-driven parsing · 0.1interface grammars · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2008 Automated verification of access control policies using a SAT solver
Graham Hughes, Tevfik Bultan
Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf.1
2008 Interface Grammars for Modular Software Model Checking
abstract
Verification techniques relying on state enumeration (e.g., model checking) face two important challenges: the state-space explosion, an exponential increase in the state space as the number of components increases; and environment generation, modeling components that are either not available for analysis, or that cannot be handled by the verification tool in use. We propose a semi-automated approach for attacking these problems. In our approach, interfaces for the components not under analysis are specified using a specification language based on grammars. Specifically, an interface grammar for a component specifies the sequences of method invocations that are allowed by that component. We have built an compiler that takes the interface grammar for a component as input and generates a stub for that component. The stub thus generated can be used to replace that component during state space exploration, either to moderate state space explosion, or to provide an executable environment for the component under verification. We conducted a case study by writing an interface grammar for the Enterprise JavaBeans (EJB) persistence interface, and using the resulting stub to check EJB clients using the JPF model checker. Our results show that EJB clients can be verified efficiently with JPF using our approach.
Graham Hughes, Tevfik Bultan
IEEE Trans. Software Eng.1
2007 Interface grammars for modular software model checking
abstract
We propose an interface specification language based on grammars for modular software model checking. In our interface specification language, component interfaces are specified as context free grammars. An interface grammar for a component specifies the sequences of method invocations that are allowed by that component. Using interface grammars one can specify nested call sequences that cannot be specified using interface specification formalisms that rely on finite state machines. Moreover, our interface grammars allow specification of semantic predicates and actions, which are Java code segments that can be used to express additional interface constraints. We have built an interface compiler that takes the interface grammar for a component as input and generates a stub for that component. The resulting stub is a table-driven parser generated from the input interface grammar. Invocation of a method within the component becomes the lookahead symbol for the stub/parser. The stub/parser uses a parser stack, the lookahead, and a parse table to guide the parsing. The semantic predicates and semantic actions that appear in the right hand sides of the production rules are executed when they appear at the top of the stack. We conducted a case study by writing an interface grammar for the Enterprise JavaBeans (EJB) persistence interface. Using our interface compiler we automatically generated an EJB stub using the EJB interface grammar. We used the JPF model checker to check EJB clients using this automatically generated EJB stub. Our results show that EJB clients can be verified efficiently using our approach.
Graham Hughes, Tevfik Bultan
ISSTA1