Correct or usable? the limits of traditional verification (impact paper award)

D. Jackson, M. Vaziri
{"title":"Correct or usable? the limits of traditional verification (impact paper award)","authors":"D. Jackson, M. Vaziri","doi":"10.1145/2950290.2994161","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since our work on verification sixteen years ago, our views of the role of verification, and the centrality of correctness, have evolved. In our presentation, we’ll talk about some of our concerns about the limitations of this kind of technology, including: usability as a key factor; the unknowable properties of the environment; and the inadequacy of specifications as a means of capturing users’ desires. We’ll describe two approaches we’re currently working on to mitigate these concerns — (1) moving to higher level abstractions with correctness by construction and (2) focusing on the conceptual structure of applications — and will argue that, combined with traditional verification tools, these offer the possibility of applications that are both usable and correct.","PeriodicalId":20532,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 2016 24th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 2016 24th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2950290.2994161","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Since our work on verification sixteen years ago, our views of the role of verification, and the centrality of correctness, have evolved. In our presentation, we’ll talk about some of our concerns about the limitations of this kind of technology, including: usability as a key factor; the unknowable properties of the environment; and the inadequacy of specifications as a means of capturing users’ desires. We’ll describe two approaches we’re currently working on to mitigate these concerns — (1) moving to higher level abstractions with correctness by construction and (2) focusing on the conceptual structure of applications — and will argue that, combined with traditional verification tools, these offer the possibility of applications that are both usable and correct.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
正确还是可用?传统验证的局限性(影响论文奖)
自从16年前我们从事核查工作以来,我们对核查的作用和正确性的中心地位的看法已经发生了变化。在我们的演讲中,我们将讨论我们对这种技术局限性的一些担忧,包括:可用性是一个关键因素;环境的不可知属性;以及作为捕捉用户需求的手段的规格说明的不足。我们将描述我们目前正在研究的两种方法来缓解这些担忧——(1)通过构造的正确性转移到更高层次的抽象;(2)关注应用程序的概念结构——并将论证,与传统的验证工具结合起来,这些方法提供了应用程序既可用又正确的可能性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Evaluation of fault localization techniques Model, execute, and deploy: answering the hard questions in end-user programming (showcase) Guided code synthesis using deep neural networks Automated change impact analysis between SysML models of requirements and design Sustainable software design
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1