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

Lucas G. Wagner

dblp:94/7566 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
6ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 6 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021Theory of computation · 1

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.

Theoretical computer science
1 paper
Automated reasoning and model checking · 100%
Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
3 papers
Software testing · 100%
Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
1 paper
Distributed systems · 100%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Automated reasoning and model checking › model checking
infinite-state model checking
0.312018
The JKind Model Checker · CAV (2) 2018
Automated reasoning and model checking
model checking
0.312018
The JKind Model Checker · CAV (2) 2018
Software testing › test coverage
coverage metrics
0.312017
Proof-based coverage metrics for formal verification · ASE 2017
Software testing
test generation
0.112018
The JKind Model Checker · CAV (2) 2018

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

shadow testing · 1.7differential testing · 1.7dafny · 1.7mutation analysis · 0.3
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Formally Verified Cloud-Scale Authorization
abstract
All critical systems must evolve to meet the needs of a growing and diversifying user base. But supporting that evolution is challenging at increasing scale: Maintainers must find a way to ensure that each change does only what is intended, and will not inadvertently change behavior for existing users. This paper presents how we addressed this challenge for the Amazon Web Services (AWS) authorization engine, invoked 1 billion times per second, by using formal verification. Over a period of four years, we built a new authorization engine, one that behaves functionally the same as its predecessor, using the verification-aware programming language Dafny. We can now confidently deploy enhancements and optimizations while maintaining the highest assurance of both correctness and backward compatibility. We deployed the new engine in 2024 without incident and customers immediately enjoyed a threefold performance improvement. The methodology we followed to build this new engine was not an off-the-shelf application of an existing verification tool, and this paper presents several key insights: 1) Rather than prove correct the existing engine, written in Java, we found it more effective to write a new engine in Dafny, a language built for verification from the ground up, and then compile the result to Java. 2) To ensure performance, debuggability, and to gain trust from stakeholders, we needed to generate readable, idiomatic Java code, essentially a transliteration of the source Dafny. 3) To ensure that the specification matches the system's actual behavior, we performed extensive differential and shadow testing throughout the development process, ultimately comparing against 1015production samples prior to deployment. Our approach demonstrates how formal verification can be effectively applied to evolve critical legacy software at scale.
Aleks Chakarov, Jaco Geldenhuys, Matthew Heck, Michael Hicks 0001, Sam Huang, Georges-Axel Jaloyan, Anjali Joshi, K. Rustan M. Leino, Mikael Mayer, Sean McLaughlin, Akhilesh Mritunjai, Clément Pit-Claudel, Sorawee Porncharoenwase, Florian Rabe 0001, Marianna Rapoport, Giles Reger, Cody Roux, Neha Rungta, Robin Salkeld, Matthias Schlaipfer, Daniel Schoepe, Johanna Schwartzentruber, Serdar Tasiran, Aaron Tomb, Emina Torlak, Jean-Baptiste Tristan, Lucas G. Wagner, Michael W. Whalen, Remy Willems, Tongtong Xiang, Taejoon Byun, Joshua M. Cohen, Ruijie Fang, Junyoung Jang 0001, Jakob Rath, Syeda Hira Taqdees, Dominik Wagner 0001, Yongwei Yuan
ICSE27
2018 The JKind Model Checker
abstract
JKind is an open-source industrial model checker developed by Rockwell Collins and the University of Minnesota. JKind uses multiple parallel engines to prove or falsify safety properties of infinite state models. It is portable, easy to install, performance competitive with other state-of-the-art model checkers, and has features designed to improve the results presented to users: inductive validity cores for proofs and counterexample smoothing for test-case generation. It serves as the back-end for various industrial applications.
Andrew Gacek, John D. Backes, Michael W. Whalen, Lucas G. Wagner, Elaheh Ghassabani
CAV (2)4
2017 Proof-based coverage metrics for formal verification
abstract
When using formal verification on critical software, an important question involves whether we have we specified enough properties for a given implementation model. To address this question, coverage metrics for property-based formal verification have been proposed. Existing metrics are usually based on mutation, where the implementation model is repeatedly modified and re-analyzed to determine whether mutant models are "killed" by the property set. These metrics tend to be very expensive to compute, as they involve many additional verification problems. This paper proposes an alternate family of metrics that can be computed using the recently introduced idea of Inductive Validity Cores (IVCs). IVCs determine a minimal set of model elements necessary to establish a proof. One of the proposed metrics is both rigorous and substantially cheaper to compute than mutation-based metrics. In addition, unlike the mutation-based techniques, the design elements marked as necessary by the metric are guaranteed to preserve provability. We demonstrate the metrics on a large corpus of examples.
Elaheh Ghassabani, Andrew Gacek, Michael W. Whalen, Mats P. E. Heimdahl, Lucas G. Wagner
ASE5
2017 SIMPAL: a compositional reasoning framework for imperative programs
abstract
The Static IMPerative AnaLyzer (SIMPAL) is a tool for performing compositional reasoning over software programs that utilize preexisting software components. SIMPAL features a specification language, called Limp, for modeling programs that utilize preexisting components. Limp is an extension of the Lustre synchronous data flow language. Limp extends Lustre by introducing control flow elements, global variables, and syntax specifying preconditions, postconditions, and global variable interactions of preexisting components.
Lucas G. Wagner, David A. Greve, Andrew Gacek
SPIN1
2013 Study on the Barriers to the Industrial Adoption of Formal Methods
Jennifer A. Davis, Matthew A. Clark 0001, Darren D. Cofer, Aaron Fifarek, Jacob Hinchman, Jonathan A. Hoffman, Brian W. Hulbert, Steven P. Miller, Lucas G. Wagner
FMICS9
2009 Development of Security Software: A High Assurance Methodology
David S. Hardin, T. Douglas Hiratzka, D. Randolph Johnson, Lucas G. Wagner, Michael W. Whalen
ICFEM4