Demo Data from SIGIR 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Ruyan Liu
dblp:359/8261
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2024
—ORCID · unresolved
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 since 2021
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
1 paper |
Program analysis · 50% Program verification · 50% | |
| Artificial intelligence
1 paper |
Language models and text generation · 100% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Program verification
equivalence checking |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Evaluating the Effectiveness of Deep Learning Models for Foundational Program Analysis Tasks · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2024 |
Program analysis › static analysis
pointer analysis |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Evaluating the Effectiveness of Deep Learning Models for Foundational Program Analysis Tasks · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2024 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
code language models |
0.2 | 1 | 2024 | Evaluating the Effectiveness of Deep Learning Models for Foundational Program Analysis Tasks · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2024 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
graph sandwiches · 1.5GGNN · 1.5CuBERT · 1.5CodeBERT · 1.5
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | Evaluating the Effectiveness of Deep Learning Models for Foundational Program Analysis TasksabstractWhile deep neural networks provide state-of-the-art solutions to a wide range of programming language tasks, their effectiveness in dealing with foundational program analysis tasks remains under explored. In this paper, we present an empirical study that evaluates four prominent models of code (i.e., CuBERT, CodeBERT, GGNN, and Graph Sandwiches) in two such foundational tasks: (1) alias prediction, in which models predict whether two pointers must alias, may alias or must not alias; and (2) equivalence prediction, in which models predict whether or not two programs are semantically equivalent. At the core of this study is CodeSem, a dataset built upon the source code of real-world flagship software (e.g., Linux Kernel, GCC, MySQL) and manually validated for the two prediction tasks. Results show that all models are accurate in both prediction tasks, especially CuBERT with an accuracy of 89% and 84% in alias prediction and equivalence prediction, respectively. We also conduct a comprehensive, in-depth analysis of the results of all models in both tasks, concluding that deep learning models are generally capable of performing foundational tasks in program analysis even though in specific cases their weaknesses are also evident. Our code and evaluation data are publicly available at https://github.com/CodeSemDataset/CodeSem. Chenyang Yu, Ruyan Liu, Chi Zhang 0073, Yu Wang 0093, Ke Wang 0022, Ting Su 0001, Linzhang Wang |
Proc. ACM Program. Lang. | 3 |