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

Karen Gundy-Burlet

dblp:91/4098 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2010
—ORCID · none

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 3

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
Software testing · 65% Program analysis · 22% Program verification · 13%
Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper
Computational science and engineering · 100%
Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
1 paper
Embedded and real-time systems · 100%

Topics — the 5 heaviest of 7, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Software testing
test generation
0.222008
Tool Support for Parametric Analysis of Large Software Simulation Systems · ASE 2008
Combining unit-level symbolic execution and system-level concrete execution for testing NASA software · ISSTA 2008
Program analysis
symbolic execution
0.112008
Combining unit-level symbolic execution and system-level concrete execution for testing NASA software · ISSTA 2008
Program verification
model checking
0.012008
Combining unit-level symbolic execution and system-level concrete execution for testing NASA software · ISSTA 2008
Program verification › model checking
symbolic model checking
0.012008
Combining unit-level symbolic execution and system-level concrete execution for testing NASA software · ISSTA 2008
Embedded and real-time systems › critical systems
safety-critical software
0.012008
Combining unit-level symbolic execution and system-level concrete execution for testing NASA software · ISSTA 2008

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

symbolic execution · 0.2supervised learning · 0.2monte carlo generation · 0.2model checking · 0.2concrete execution · 0.2bayesian clustering · 0.2TAR3 · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2010 Automatically finding the control variables for complex system behavior
Gregory Gay 0002, Tim Menzies, Misty D. Davies, Karen Gundy-Burlet
Autom. Softw. Eng.4
2008 Combining unit-level symbolic execution and system-level concrete execution for testing NASA software
abstract
We describe an approach to testing complex safety critical software that combines unit-level symbolic execution and system-level concrete execution for generating test cases that satisfy user-specified testing criteria. We have developed Symbolic Java PathFinder, a symbolic execution framework that implements a non-standard bytecode interpreter on top of the Java PathFinder model checking tool. The framework propagates the symbolic information via attributes associated with the program data. Furthermore, we use two techniques that leverage system-level concrete program executions to gather information about a unit's input to improve the precision of the unit-level test case generation. We applied our approach to testing a prototype NASA flight software component. Our analysis helped discover a serious bug that resulted in design changes to the software. Although we give our presentation in the context of a NASA project, we believe that our work is relevant for other critical systems that require thorough testing.
Corina Pasareanu, Peter C. Mehlitz, David H. Bushnell, Karen Gundy-Burlet, Michael R. Lowry, Suzette Person, Mark Pape
ISSTA4
2008 Tool Support for Parametric Analysis of Large Software Simulation Systems
abstract
The analysis of large and complex parameterized software systems, e.g., systems simulation in aerospace, is very complicated and time-consuming due to the large parameter space, and the complex, highly coupled nonlinear nature of the different system components. Thus, such systems are generally validated only in regions local to anticipated operating points rather than through characterization of the entire feasible operational envelope of the system. We have addressed the factors deterring such an analysis with a tool to support envelope assessment: we utilize a combination of advanced Monte Carlo generation with n-factor combinatorial parameter variations to limit the number of cases, but still explore important interactions in the parameter space in a systematic fashion. Additional test-cases, automatically generated from models (e.g., UML, Simulink, Stateflow) improve the coverage. The distributed test runs of the software system produce vast amounts of data, making manual analysis impossible. Our tool automatically analyzes the generated data through a combination of unsupervised Bayesian clustering techniques (AutoBayes) and supervised learning of critical parameter ranges using the treatment learner TAR3. The tool has been developed around the Trick simulation environment, which is widely used within NASA. We will present this tool with a GN&C (Guidance, Navigation and Control) simulation of a small satellite system.
Johann Schumann, Karen Gundy-Burlet, Corina Pasareanu, Tim Menzies, Tony Barrett
ASE2