Combining unit-level symbolic execution and system-level concrete execution for testing nasa software

By Corina S. Pasareanu, P. Mehlitz, David H. Bushnell, K. Gundy-Burlet, M. Lowry, Suzette Person, M. Pape. International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, 2008

314 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Information Systems, Software

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4fbd086fb937dcb17a9b3cfdc57acc19a3c0fc20

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Information Systems

In Software

Citations in the corpus

S2E: a platform for in-vivo multi-path analysis of software systems (2011, background): “SJPF [31] canswitchfrom concrete to symbolicdomains,butdoes not track constraints when switchingback, soit cannotpreserve consistency.”
An orchestrated survey of methodologies for automated software test case generation (2013, background): “Finally, other techniques (Chipounov et al., 2011; Godefroid et al., 2008b; Majumdar and Sen, 2007; Pasareanu et al., 2008) in this class use specific path exploration strategies that enable generation of test data that cover deep internal parts of a program, which are difficult to cover otherwise.”
Symbolic PathFinder: symbolic execution of Java bytecode (2010, methodology): “Furthermore, SPF supports a mixed mode execution [7] that combines concrete and symbolic execution.”
Differential symbolic execution (2008, methodology): “Recent advances in symbolic execution [39, 58, 75, 76] make it possible to produce more precise change information, however, loops and recursion are generally impossible to bound using input constraints, which can lead to characterizations that do not account for all of a program’s behaviors.”