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

Stephan Falke 0001

dblp:64/6306-1 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
14ranked-venue papers
7as first author
0since 2021 · last 2016
—ORCID · none

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

Theory of computation · 8 · 5 first-authorArtificial intelligence and machine learning · 5 · 3 first-authorSoftware engineering, systems software and programming languages · 5 · 2 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 analysis · 80% Program verification · 16% Compilers and program optimization · 5%

Topics — the 5 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Program analysis › cost analysis
runtime complexity analysis
0.212016
Analyzing Runtime and Size Complexity of Integer Programs · ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 2016
Program verification › model checking
bounded model checking
0.212013
The bounded model checker LLBMC · ASE 2013
Program analysis › static analysis
bug detection
0.212013
The bounded model checker LLBMC · ASE 2013
Program analysis › error detection
runtime error detection
0.212013
The bounded model checker LLBMC · ASE 2013
Compilers and program optimization
intermediate representation
0.012013
The bounded model checker LLBMC · ASE 2013

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

integer programming · 0.2bit-vector theory · 0.2SMT solving · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2016 Analyzing Runtime and Size Complexity of Integer Programs
Marc Brockschmidt, Fabian Emmes, Stephan Falke 0001, Carsten Fuhs, Jürgen Giesl
ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst.3
2014 Alternating Runtime and Size Complexity Analysis of Integer Programs
Marc Brockschmidt, Fabian Emmes, Stephan Falke 0001, Carsten Fuhs, Jürgen Giesl
TACAS3
2013 The bounded model checker LLBMC
abstract
This paper presents LLBMC, a tool for finding bugs and runtime errors in sequential C/C++ programs. LLBMC employs bounded model checking using an SMT-solver for the theory of bitvectors and arrays and thus achieves precision down to the level of single bits. The two main features of LLBMC that distinguish it from other bounded model checking tools for C/C++ are (i) its bit-precise memory model, which makes it possible to support arbitrary type conversions via stores and loads; and (ii) that it operates on a compiler intermediate representation and not directly on the source code.
Stephan Falke 0001, Florian Merz 0001, Carsten Sinz
ASE1
2013 LLBMC: Improved Bounded Model Checking of C Programs Using LLVM - (Competition Contribution)
Stephan Falke 0001, Florian Merz 0001, Carsten Sinz
TACAS1
2012 LLBMC: A Bounded Model Checker for LLVM's Intermediate Representation - (Competition Contribution)
Carsten Sinz, Florian Merz 0001, Stephan Falke 0001
TACAS3
2011 Termination Analysis of C Programs Using Compiler Intermediate Languages
abstract
Modeling the semantics of programming languages like C for the automated termination analysis of programs is a challenge if complete coverage of all language features should be achieved. On the other hand, low-level intermediate languages that occur during the compilation of C programs to machine code have a much simpler semantics since most of the intricacies of C are taken care of by the compiler frontend. It is thus a promising approach to use these intermediate languages for the automated termination analysis of C programs. In this paper we present the tool KITTeL based on this approach. For this, programs in the compiler intermediate language are translated into term rewrite systems (TRSs), and the termination proof itself is then performed on the automatically generated TRS. An evaluation on a large collection of C programs shows the effectiveness and practicality of KITTeL on "typical" examples.
Stephan Falke 0001, Deepak Kapur, Carsten Sinz
RTA1
2009 A Term Rewriting Approach to the Automated Termination Analysis of Imperative Programs
Stephan Falke 0001, Deepak Kapur
CADE1
2009 Proving Termination of Integer Term Rewriting
Carsten Fuhs, Jürgen Giesl, Martin Plücker, Peter Schneider-Kamp, Stephan Falke 0001
RTA5
2008 Dependency Pairs for Rewriting with Built-In Numbers and Semantic Data Structures
Stephan Falke 0001, Deepak Kapur
RTA1
2007 Dependency Pairs for Rewriting with Non-free Constructors
Stephan Falke 0001, Deepak Kapur
CADE1
2006 Inductive Decidability Using Implicit Induction
Stephan Falke 0001, Deepak Kapur
LPAR1
2006 Mechanizing and Improving Dependency Pairs
Jürgen Giesl, René Thiemann, Peter Schneider-Kamp, Stephan Falke 0001
J. Autom. Reason.4
2004 Automated Termination Proofs with AProVE
Jürgen Giesl, René Thiemann, Peter Schneider-Kamp, Stephan Falke 0001
RTA4
2003 Improving Dependency Pairs
Jürgen Giesl, René Thiemann, Peter Schneider-Kamp, Stephan Falke 0001
LPAR4