EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Stuart Oliver Anderson
dblp:53/651
· DBLP profile ↗
4ranked-venue papers
4as first author
0since 2021 · last 1997
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Theory of computation · 2 · 2 first-authorSoftware engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 first-authorApplied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 1 · 1 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
1 paper |
Compilers and program optimization · 100% | |
| Theoretical computer science
1 paper |
Automata and formal languages · 100% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Compilers and program optimization › parsing
error recovery |
0.0 | 1 | 1981 | Locally Least-Cost Error Recovery in Early's Algorithm · ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 1981 |
Compilers and program optimization
parsing |
0.0 | 1 | 1981 | Locally Least-Cost Error Recovery in Early's Algorithm · ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 1981 |
Automata and formal languages › formal grammars
context-free grammar |
0.0 | 1 | 1981 | Locally Least-Cost Error Recovery in Early's Algorithm · ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 1981 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
wagner-fischer model · 0.0locally least-cost error recovery · 0.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1997 | A Representable Approach to Finite Nondeterminism
Stuart Oliver Anderson, John Power |
Theor. Comput. Sci. | 1 |
| 1983 | An Assessment of Locally Least-Cost Error RecoveryabstractLocally least-cost error recovery is a technique for recovering from syntax errors by editing the input string at the point of error detection. An informal description of a parser generator which implements the technique is given. The generator takes as input an extended BNF description of a language together with a set of primitive edit costs and outputs a recursive descent syntax analyser including error recovery. Criteria for assessment of the technique are offered. Using these criteria the technique is assessed with respect to a database of over 100 example programs, and compared with an alternative local error recovery technique, that of follow set error recovery. The conclusion is that locally least-cost error recovery is more effective than follow set error recovery but much less economical in its use of storage space. The least-cost parser also runs between 15 and 20% slower than the follow set parser. Stuart Oliver Anderson, Roland Carl Backhouse, E. H. Bugge, C. P. Stirling |
Comput. J. | 1 |
| 1982 | An Alternative Implementation of an Insertion-Only Recovery Technique
Stuart Oliver Anderson, Roland Carl Backhouse |
Acta Informatica | 1 |
| 1981 | Locally Least-Cost Error Recovery in Early's Algorithmabstract~While-least-cost~ error correction is fundamentally important to context-free language processing, it is inefficient w'Qhemdone globally.A locally least-cost repair method has been devised to model error recovery in conventional-~o-mpile]ts.The principles of this recovery technique have inspired a practical LL(1) method and should be of value m ~ntmg-error~rJel~a~lr m other parsing algorithms.-At each point in the syntax analysis, a locally optimal repair of't~e-next-sy-mBffl is defined to be a string w such that w can be parsed without error and such that editing the symbol following w can be achieved at least cost, costs being defined by the Wagner-Fischer model of string-to-string correction.In this paper we describe how error recovery can be achieved in Earley's algorithm by simulating locally optimal repairs.The main result is to show that the complexity of Earley's algorithm is not affected by this process; that is, for any input string of length n, the work involved is O(n) if the given grammar is deterministic, O(n 2) if the grammar is unambiguous, and O(n 3) in the worst case.Key Words and Phrases: error repair, Stuart Oliver Anderson, Roland Carl Backhouse |
ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. | 1 |