SaiDeep Tetali

dblp:98/1457 · 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 · 53% Program verification · 30% Program analysis · 17%

Topics — the 9 heaviest of 9, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Program verification
abstraction refinement
0.112010
Proofs from Tests · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2010
Program analysis › static analysis › modular analysis
compositional static analysis
0.112010
Compositional may-must program analysis: unleashing the power of alternation · POPL 2010
Software testing › automated testing
directed testing
0.112010
Compositional may-must program analysis: unleashing the power of alternation · POPL 2010
Software testing › test generation
dynamic test generation
0.112010
Compositional may-must program analysis: unleashing the power of alternation · POPL 2010
Program verification › model checking
software model checking
0.112010
Proofs from Tests · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2010
Software testing
test-based verification
0.112010
Proofs from Tests · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2010
Software testing
test generation
0.112010
Proofs from Tests · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2010
Program analysis › static analysis
pointer analysis
0.012010
Proofs from Tests · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2010
Program verification › abstraction-based verification
predicate abstraction
0.012010
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
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2010 Compositional may-must program analysis: unleashing the power of alternation
abstract
Program 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
POPL4
2010 Proofs from Tests
abstract
We 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
TACAS3