EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
SaiDeep Tetali
dblp:98/1457
· DBLP profile ↗
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 · 53% Program verification · 30% Program analysis · 17% |
Topics — the 9 heaviest of 9, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Program verification
abstraction refinement |
0.1 | 1 | 2010 | Proofs from Tests · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2010 |
Program analysis › static analysis › modular analysis
compositional static analysis |
0.1 | 1 | 2010 | Compositional may-must program analysis: unleashing the power of alternation · POPL 2010 |
Software testing › automated testing
directed testing |
0.1 | 1 | 2010 | Compositional may-must program analysis: unleashing the power of alternation · POPL 2010 |
Software testing › test generation
dynamic test generation |
0.1 | 1 | 2010 | Compositional may-must program analysis: unleashing the power of alternation · POPL 2010 |
Program verification › model checking
software model checking |
0.1 | 1 | 2010 | Proofs from Tests · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2010 |
Software testing
test-based verification |
0.1 | 1 | 2010 | Proofs from Tests · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2010 |
Software testing
test generation |
0.1 | 1 | 2010 | Proofs from Tests · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2010 |
Program analysis › static analysis
pointer analysis |
0.0 | 1 | 2010 | Proofs from Tests · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2010 |
Program verification › abstraction-based verification
predicate abstraction |
0.0 | 1 | 2010 | Compositional may-must program analysis: unleashing the power of alternation · POPL 2010 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
predicate abstraction · 0.2test generation · 0.1symbolic execution · 0.1function summaries · 0.1demand-driven analysis · 0.1
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | Compositional may-must program analysis: unleashing the power of alternationabstractProgram analysis tools typically compute two types of information: (1) may information that is true of all program executions and is used to prove the absence of bugs in the program, and (2) must information that is true of some program executions and is used to prove the existence of bugs in the program. In this paper, we propose a new algorithm, dubbed SMASH, which computes both may and must information compositionally . At each procedure boundary, may and must information is represented and stored as may and must summaries, respectively. Those summaries are computed in a demand driven manner and possibly using summaries of the opposite type. We have implemented SMASH using predicate abstraction (as in SLAM) for the may part and using dynamic test generation (as in DART) for the must part. Results of experiments with 69 Microsoft Windows 7 device drivers show that SMASH can significantly outperform may-only, must-only and non-compositional may-must algorithms. Indeed, our empirical results indicate that most complex code fragments in large programs are actually often either easy to prove irrelevant to the specific property of interest using may analysis or easy to traverse using directed testing. The fine-grained coupling and alternation of may (universal) and must (existential) summaries allows SMASH to easily navigate through these code fragments while traditional may-only, must-only or non-compositional may-must algorithms are stuck in their specific analyses. Patrice Godefroid, Aditya V. Nori, Sriram K. Rajamani, SaiDeep Tetali |
POPL | 4 |
| 2010 | Proofs from TestsabstractWe present an algorithm DASH to check if a program P satisfies a safety property φ. The unique feature of this algorithm is that it uses only test generation operations, and it refines and maintains a sound program abstraction as a consequence of failed test generation operations. Thus, each iteration of the algorithm is inexpensive, and can be implemented without any global may-alias information. In particular, we introduce a new refinement operator WPαthat uses only the alias information obtained by symbolically executing a test to refine abstractions in a sound manner. We present a full exposition of the DASH algorithm and its theoretical properties. We have implemented DASH in a tool called YOGI that plugs into Microsoft's Static Driver Verifier framework. We have used this framework to run YOGI on 69 Windows Vista drivers with 85 properties and find that YOGI scales much better than SLAM, the current engine driving Microsoft's Static Driver Verifier. Nels E. Beckman, Aditya V. Nori, Sriram K. Rajamani, Robert J. Simmons, SaiDeep Tetali, Aditya V. Thakur |
IEEE Trans. Software Eng. | 5 |
| 2009 | The YogiProject: Software Property Checking via Static Analysis and Testing
Aditya V. Nori, Sriram K. Rajamani, SaiDeep Tetali, Aditya V. Thakur |
TACAS | 3 |