Paper presentation procedure and schedule
We will spend 45 minutes in class discussing each paper.
All of you are required to thoroughly read and try to understand every paper to prepare for the discussion. For each paper, you will submit a summary of one page maximum. This is to ensure that everyone has read and understood all of the papers being discussed. The summary should both summarize the paper, and include your own evaluation of the contributions and limitations of the paper. The summary will be graded either pass or fail. The deadline for each summary will be immediately before the in-class discussion of the corresponding paper.
For each paper, two students will be chosen as the presenters. Together, they must prepare a 20 to 25 minute presentation about the paper. The presentation should set the tone for the discussion. Since everyone has read the paper but perhaps not understood all the details, the presentation can introduce the paper relatively quickly and go deeper into the interesting details (but do respect the 25 minute time limit). You may use figures/algorithms/tables/theorems/etc. from the paper in your presentation, but only if you are explaining them as part of your presentation. Do not just show an excerpt from the paper without saying anything about it.
After the presentation, the presenters will lead and stimulate the discussion of the paper for the remaining 20-25 minutes.
Everyone is expected to participate actively in the discussion, and a small part of your grade will be allocated to ensuring that you do participate.
After each presentation, I will ask each student to fill out this presentation evaluation form to provide feedback. I will also fill out the form myself. 50% of the presenters' grade for the presentation will be determined by the grade that I assign, and the other 50% as the average of the grades assigned by the students in the course.
The two presenters of each paper are not required to submit a summary of that paper.
|Wed Apr 1||(a) (Liu Fengyun, Ólafur Páll Geirsson) John B. Kam and Jeffrey D. Ullman. Monotone Data Flow Analysis Frameworks. Acta Inf., 7:305-317, 1977.|
|Wed Apr 15||(b) (Amna Shahab, Qiang Wang) Micha Sharir and Amir Pnueli. Two approaches to interprocedural data flow analysis. In Steven S Muchnick and Neil D Jones, Program Flow Analysis: Theory and Applications, chapter 7, pages 189-233. 1981.|
|Wed Apr 29||(c) (Bogdan-Alexandru Stoica, Arseniy Zaostrovnykh) Frank Tip and Jens Palsberg. Scalable propagation-based call graph construction algorithms. OOPSLA 2000, pages 281-293.|
|Wed Apr 29||(d) (Ioannis Lamprou, Stefanos Skalistis) Ondřej Lhoták and Laurie Hendren. Scaling Java Points-to Analysis Using Spark. CC 2003, pages 153-169.|
|Wed May 6||(e) (Maëlle Colussi, Mathieu Demarne) Thomas W. Reps, Susan Horwitz, Shmuel Sagiv: Precise Interprocedural Dataflow Analysis via Graph Reachability. POPL 1995: 49-61|
|Wed May 6||(f) (Marco Antognini, Sandro Stucki) Shmuel Sagiv, Thomas W. Reps, Reinhard Wilhelm: Solving Shape-Analysis Problems in Languages with Destructive Updating. POPL 1996: 16-31|
|Wed May 13||(g) (Cédric Bastin, Manos Koukoutos) John M. Lucassen, David K. Gifford: Polymorphic Effect Systems. POPL 1988: 47-57|
|Wed May 13||(h) (Florian Marcel Briant, Daniel Espino Timón) Daniel Marino, Todd D. Millstein: A generic type-and-effect system. TLDI 2009: 39-50|
|Wed May 20||(i) (Karl Samuel Grütter, Georg Stefan Schmid) Jeffrey S. Foster, Manuel Fähndrich, Alexander Aiken: A Theory of Type Qualifiers. PLDI 1999: 192-203|
|Wed May 20||(j) (Amir Shaikhha, Khayyam Mubariz Oglu Guliyev) Wei Huang, Ana Milanova, Werner Dietl, Michael D. Ernst: Reim & ReImInfer: checking and inference of reference immutability and method purity. OOPSLA 2012: 879-896|