Demo Data from SIGIR 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Bill J. Ellis
dblp:36/2196
· DBLP profile ↗
3ranked-venue papers
2as first author
0since 2021 · last 2006
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 2 · 2 first-authorArtificial intelligence and machine learning · 1Theory of computation · 1 · 1 first-author
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 verification · 77% Program analysis · 23% |
Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Program verification › proof assistants
proof automation |
0.0 | 1 | 2003 | Automation for Exception Freedom Proofs · ASE 2003 |
Program analysis › static analysis
abstract interpretation |
0.0 | 1 | 2003 | Automation for Exception Freedom Proofs · ASE 2003 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
proof planning · 0.0abstract interpretation · 0.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2006 | An Integrated Approach to High Integrity Software Verification
Andrew Ireland, Bill J. Ellis, Andrew Cook, Roderick Chapman, Janet Barnes |
J. Autom. Reason. | 2 |
| 2004 | An Integration of Program Analysis and Automated Theorem Proving
Bill J. Ellis, Andrew Ireland |
IFM | 1 |
| 2003 | Automation for Exception Freedom ProofsabstractRun-time errors are typically seen as unacceptable within safety and security critical software. The SPARK approach to the development of high integrity software addresses the problem of run-time errors through the use of formal verification. Proofs are constructed to show that each run-time check will never raise an error, thus proving freedom from run-time exceptions. Here we build upon the success of the SPARK approach by increasing the level of automation that can be achieved in proving freedom from exceptions. Our approach is based upon proof planning and a form of abstract interpretation. Bill J. Ellis, Andrew Ireland |
ASE | 1 |