Source author record

Luca Guglielmo

Luca Guglielmo appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Catalog footprint

What is connected

2works
2topics
3close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2026arXiv

Path-optimal symbolic execution of heap-manipulating programs

Symbolic execution is at the core of many techniques for program analysis and test generation. Traditional symbolic execution of programs with numeric inputs enjoys the property of forking as many analysis traces as the number of analyzed program paths, a property that in this paper we refer to as path optimality. On the contrary, current approaches for symbolic execution of heap-manipulating programs fail to satisfy this property, thereby incurring crucial path explosion effects. This paper introduces POSE, path-optimal symbolic execution, a symbolic execution algorithm that originally achieves path optimality against heap-manipulating programs. We formalize the POSE algorithm and experiment it against a benchmark of programs that take data structures as inputs, supporting the potential of POSE for improving on the state of the art of symbolic execution of heap-manipulating programs.

preprint2021arXiv

Towards Evidence-based Testability Measurements

Evaluating Software testability can assist software managers in optimizing testing budgets and identifying opportunities for refactoring. In this paper, we abandon the traditional approach of pursuing testability measurements based on the correlation between software metrics and test characteristics observed on past projects, e.g., the size, the organization or the code coverage of the test cases. We propose a radically new approach that exploits automatic test generation and mutation analysis to quantify the amount of evidence about the relative hardness of identifying effective test cases. We introduce two novel evidence-based testability metrics, describe a prototype to compute them, and discuss initial findings on whether our measurements can reflect actual testability issues.