• Aucun résultat trouvé

Preface

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2022

Partager "Preface"

Copied!
6
0
0

Texte intégral

(1)

Vladimir Klebanov Bernhard Beckert Armin Biere

Geoff Sutcliffe (Eds.)

COMPARE 2012

Comparative Empirical Evaluation of Reasoning Systems

Proceedings of the International Workshop

June 30, 2012, Manchester, United Kingdom

(2)

Editors

Vladimir Klebanov

Karlsruhe Institute of Technology Institute for Theoretical Informatics

Am Fasanengarten 5, 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany Email: [email protected]

Bernhard Beckert

Karlsruhe Institute of Technology Institute for Theoretical Informatics

Am Fasanengarten 5, 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany Email: [email protected]

Armin Biere

Institute for Formal Models and Verification Johannes Kepler University

Altenbergerstr. 69, 4040 Linz, Austria Email: [email protected]

Geoff Sutcliffe

Department of Computer Science University of Miami

P.O. Box 248154, Coral Gables, FL 33124-4245, USA Email: [email protected]

Copyright©2012 for the individual papers by the papers’ authors. Copying permitted for private and academic purposes. This volume is published and copyrighted by its editors.

(3)

Preface

This volume contains the proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Comparative Empirical Evaluation of Reasoning Systems (COMPARE 2012), held on June 30th, 2012 in Manchester, UK, in conjunction with the International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR).

It has become accepted wisdom that regular comparative evaluation of rea- soning systems helps to focus research, identify relevant problems, bolster devel- opment, and advance the field in general. Benchmark libraries and competitions are two popular approaches to do so. The number of competitions has been rapidly increasing lately. At the moment, we are aware of about a dozen bench- mark collections and two dozen competitions for reasoning systems of different kinds. It is time to compare notes.

What are the proper empirical approaches and criteria for effective compar- ative evaluation of reasoning systems? What are the appropriate hardware and software environments? How to assess usability of reasoning systems, and in par- ticular of systems that are used interactively? How to design, acquire, structure, publish, and use benchmarks and problem collections?

The aim of the workshop was to advance comparative empirical evaluation by bringing together current and future competition organizers and participants, maintainers of benchmark collections, as well as practitioners and the general scientific public interested in the topic.

We wish to sincerely thank all the authors who submitted their work for consideration. All submitted papers were peer-reviewed, and we would like to thank the Program Committee members as well as the additional referees for their great effort and professional work in the review and selection process. Their names are listed on the following pages. We are deeply grateful to our invited speakers—Leonardo de Moura (Microsoft Research) and Cesare Tinelli (Univer- sity of Iowa)—for accepting the invitation to address the workshop participants.

We thank Sarah Grebing for her help in organizing the workshop and compiling this volume.

June 2012 Vladimir Klebanov

Bernhard Beckert Armin Biere Geoff Sutcliffe

III COMPARE 2012

(4)

Program Committee

Bernhard Beckert Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany Christoph Benzm¨uller Free University Berlin, Germany

Dirk Beyer University of Passau, Germany

Armin Biere Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria Vinay Chaudhri SRI International, USA

Koen Claessen Chalmers Technical University, Sweden Alberto Griggio Fondazione Bruno Kessler, Italy Marieke Huisman University of Twente, the Netherlands

Radu Iosif Verimag/CNRS/University of Grenoble, France Vladimir Klebanov Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany Rosemary Monahan National University of Ireland Maynooth Micha l Moskal Microsoft Research, USA

Jens Otten University of Potsdam, Germany Franck Pommereau University of ´Evry, France

Sylvie Putot CEA-LIST, France

Olivier Roussel CNRS, France

Albert Rubio Universitat Polit`ecnica de Catalunya, Spain Aaron Stump University of Iowa, USA

Geoff Sutcliffe University of Miami, USA

Program Co-Chairs

Bernhard Beckert Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany Armin Biere Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria Vladimir Klebanov Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany Geoff Sutcliffe University of Miami, USA

Organising Committee

Bernhard Beckert Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany Sarah Grebing Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany Vladimir Klebanov Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany

Additional Referees

Sarah Grebing

COMPARE 2012 IV

(5)

Table of Contents

Abstracts of Invited Talks

Regression Tests and the Inventor’s Dilemma. . . 1 Leonardo de Moura

Introducing StarExec: a Cross-Community Infrastructure for Logic

Solving . . . 2 Aaron Stump, Geoff Sutcliffe, and Cesare Tinelli

Contributed Papers

Evaluating the Usability of Interactive Verification Systems . . . 3 Bernhard Beckert and Sarah Grebing

Broadening the Scope of SMT-COMP: the Application Track. . . 18 Roberto Bruttomesso and Alberto Griggio

A Simple Complexity Measurement for Software Verification and

Software Testing. . . 28 Zheng Cheng, Rosemary Monahan, and James Power

Benchmarking Static Analyzers. . . 32 Pascal Cuoq, Florent Kirchner, and Boris Yakobowski

The 2nd Verified Software Competition: Experience Report . . . 36 Jean-Christophe Filliˆatre, Andrei Paskevich, and Aaron Stump

On the Organisation of Program Verification Competitions. . . 50 Marieke Huisman, Vladimir Klebanov, and Rosemary Monahan

Challenges in Comparing Software Verification Tools for C . . . 60 Florian Merz, Carsten Sinz, and Stephan Falke

Behind the Scene of Solvers Competitions: the “evaluation” Experience . . 66 Olivier Roussel

Author Index

. . . 78

V COMPARE 2012

(6)

COMPARE 2012 VI

Références

Documents relatifs

As mentioned, at the most general level, theories that rely on viewpoint-invariant representations predict no systematic eect of viewpoint on either response times or error

These data are obtained by rotating the same 3D model used for the generation of the illumination examples: texture mapping techniques are then used to project a frontal view of

Figure 6: False positive matches: Images 1 and 2 show templates constructed from models Slow and Yield overlying the sign in image Slow2 (correlation values 0.56

The torque F(t) de- pends on the visual input; it was found (see Reichardt and Poggio, 1976) that it can be approximated, under situations of tracking and chasing, as a function

We now provide some simulations conducted on arbi- trary functions of the class of functions with bounded derivative (the class F ): Fig. 16 shows 4 arbitrary se- lected

We make a number of cross-linguistic comparisons in which we investigate the syntactic behavior of verbs in German, Bangla, and Korean which correspond to the English

In the rst stage the basis function parameters are de- termined using the input data alone, which corresponds to a density estimation problem using a mixture model in

The F-B algorithm relies on a factorization of the joint probability function to obtain locally recursive methods One of the key points in this paper is that the