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

Mauro Baluda

dblp:64/10029 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
3as first author
0since 2021 · last 2016
—ORCID · none

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 3 · 3 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
2 papers
Software testing · 54% Program analysis · 30% Program verification · 16%

Topics — the 7 heaviest of 8, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Software testing › test coverage › code coverage
branch coverage
0.212016
Bidirectional Symbolic Analysis for Effective Branch Testing · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2016
Software testing › test adequacy › coverage criteria
structural coverage criteria
0.212016
Bidirectional Symbolic Analysis for Effective Branch Testing · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2016
Program analysis
symbolic execution
0.212016
Bidirectional Symbolic Analysis for Effective Branch Testing · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2016
Program verification
abstraction refinement
0.112011
Automatic structural testing with abstraction refinement and coarsening · SIGSOFT FSE 2011
Program analysis
static analysis
0.112011
Automatic structural testing with abstraction refinement and coarsening · SIGSOFT FSE 2011
Software testing
structural testing
0.112011
Automatic structural testing with abstraction refinement and coarsening · SIGSOFT FSE 2011
Software testing
test generation
0.012011
Automatic structural testing with abstraction refinement and coarsening · SIGSOFT FSE 2011

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

symbolic reachability analysis · 0.2symbolic execution · 0.2coarsening · 0.1abstraction refinement · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2016 Bidirectional Symbolic Analysis for Effective Branch Testing
abstract
Structural coverage metrics, and in particular branch coverage, are popular approaches to measure the thoroughness of test suites. Unfortunately, the presence of elements that are not executable in the program under test and the difficulty of generating test cases for rare conditions impact on the effectiveness of the coverage obtained with current approaches. In this paper, we propose a new approach that combines symbolic execution and symbolic reachability analysis to improve the effectiveness of branch testing. Our approach embraces the ideal definition of branch coverage as the percentage of executable branches traversed with the test suite, and proposes a new bidirectional symbolic analysis for both testing rare execution conditions and eliminating infeasible branches from the set of test objectives. The approach is centered on a model of the analyzed execution space. The model identifies the frontier between symbolic execution and symbolic reachability analysis, to guide the alternation and the progress of bidirectional analysis towards the coverage targets. The experimental results presented in the paper indicate that the proposed approach can both find test inputs that exercise rare execution conditions that are not identified with state-of-the-art approaches and eliminate many infeasible branches from the coverage measurement. It can thus produce a modified branch coverage metric that indicates the amount of feasible branches covered during testing, and helps team leaders and developers in estimating the amount of not-yet-covered feasible branches. The approach proposed in this paper suffers less than the other approaches from particular cases that may trap the analysis in unbounded loops.
Mauro Baluda, Giovanni Denaro, Mauro Pezzè
IEEE Trans. Software Eng.1
2011 Automatic structural testing with abstraction refinement and coarsening
abstract
White box testing, also referred to as structural testing, can be used to assess the validity of test suites with respect to the implementation. The applicability of white box testing and structural coverage is limited by the difficulty and the cost of inspecting the uncovered code elements to either generate test cases that cover elements not yet executed or to prove the infeasibility of the elements not yet covered.
Mauro Baluda
SIGSOFT FSE1
2011 Enhancing structural software coverage by incrementally computing branch executability
Mauro Baluda, Pietro Braione, Giovanni Denaro, Mauro Pezzè
Softw. Qual. J.1