{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,1,30]],"date-time":"2026-01-30T04:57:58Z","timestamp":1769749078505,"version":"3.49.0"},"publisher-location":"Cham","reference-count":41,"publisher":"Springer International Publishing","isbn-type":[{"value":"9783030714994","type":"print"},{"value":"9783030715007","type":"electronic"}],"license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2021,1,1]],"date-time":"2021-01-01T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1609459200000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2021,3,20]],"date-time":"2021-03-20T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1616198400000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":78,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["link.springer.com"],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":[],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2021]]},"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title><jats:p>Software verification has recently made enormous progress due to the development of novel verification methods and the speed-up of supporting technologies like SMT solving. To keep software verification tools up to date with these advances, tool developers keep on integrating newly designed methods into their tools, almost exclusively by re-implementing the method within their own framework. While this allows for a conceptual re-use of methods, it nevertheless requires novel implementations for every new technique.<\/jats:p><jats:p>In this paper, we employ <jats:italic>cooperative verification<\/jats:italic> in order to avoid re-implementation and enable usage of novel tools as black-box components in verification. Specifically, cooperation is employed for the core ingredient of software verification which is <jats:italic>invariant generation<\/jats:italic>. Finding an adequate loop invariant is key to the success of a verification run. Our framework named CoVEGI allows a master verification tool to delegate the task of invariant generation to one or several specialized helper invariant generators. Their results are then utilized within the verification run of the master verifier, allowing in particular for crosschecking the validity of the invariant. We experimentally evaluate our framework on an instance with two masters and three different invariant generators using a number of benchmarks from SV-COMP 2020. The experiments show that the use of CoVEGI can increase the number of correctly verified tasks without increasing the used resources.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1007\/978-3-030-71500-7_6","type":"book-chapter","created":{"date-parts":[[2021,3,19]],"date-time":"2021-03-19T13:12:14Z","timestamp":1616159534000},"page":"108-129","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/springer_crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":9,"title":["CoVEGI: Cooperative Verification via Externally Generated Invariants"],"prefix":"10.1007","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-5098-0495","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Jan","family":"Haltermann","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-2385-7512","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Heike","family":"Wehrheim","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"297","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2021,3,20]]},"reference":[{"key":"6_CR1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Afzal, M., Asia, A., Chauhan, A., Chimdyalwar, B., Darke, P., Datar, A., Kumar, S., Venkatesh, R.: Veriabs : Verification by abstraction and test generation. In: ASE. pp. 1138\u20131141. IEEE (2019). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1109\/ASE.2019.00121","DOI":"10.1109\/ASE.2019.00121"},{"key":"6_CR2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Beyer, D.: Software verification with validation of results - (report on SV-COMP 2017). In: Legay, A., Margaria, T. (eds.) TACAS. LNCS, vol. 10206, pp. 331\u2013349. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2017). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-3-662-54580-5_20","DOI":"10.1007\/978-3-662-54580-5_20"},{"key":"6_CR3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Beyer, D., Dangl, M., Dietsch, D., Heizmann, M.: Correctness witnesses: exchanging verification results between verifiers. In: Zimmermann, T., Cleland-Huang, J., Su, Z. (eds.) FSE. pp. 326\u2013337. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2016). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1145\/2950290.2950351","DOI":"10.1145\/2950290.2950351"},{"key":"6_CR4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Beyer, D., Dangl, M., Dietsch, D., Heizmann, M., Stahlbauer, A.: Witness validation and stepwise testification across software verifiers. In: Nitto, E.D., Harman, M., Heymans, P. (eds.) ESEC\/FSE. pp. 721\u2013733. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2015). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1145\/2786805.2786867","DOI":"10.1145\/2786805.2786867"},{"key":"6_CR5","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Beyer, D., Dangl, M., Wendler, P.: Boosting k-induction with continuously-refined invariants. In: Kroening, D., Pasareanu, C.S. (eds.) CAV. LNCS, vol.\u00a09206, pp. 622\u2013640. Springer, Cham (2015). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-3-319-21690-4_42","DOI":"10.1007\/978-3-319-21690-4_42"},{"key":"6_CR6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Beyer, D., Gulwani, S., Schmidt, D.A.: Combining model checking and data-flow analysis. In: Clarke, E.M., Henzinger, T.A., Veith, H., Bloem, R. (eds.) Handbook of Model Checking, pp. 493\u2013540. Springer (2018). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-3-319-10575-8_16","DOI":"10.1007\/978-3-319-10575-8_16"},{"key":"6_CR7","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Beyer, D., Henzinger, T.A., Keremoglu, M.E., Wendler, P.: Conditional model checking: a technique to pass information between verifiers. In: Tracz, W., Robillard, M.P., Bultan, T. (eds.) FSE. p.\u00a057. ACM (2012). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1145\/2393596.2393664","DOI":"10.1145\/2393596.2393664"},{"key":"6_CR8","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Beyer, D., Jakobs, M.: Coveritest: Cooperative verifier-based testing. In: H\u00e4hnle, R., van\u00a0der Aalst, W.M.P. (eds.) FASE. LNCS, vol. 11424, pp. 389\u2013408. Springer (2019). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-3-030-16722-6_23","DOI":"10.1007\/978-3-030-16722-6_23"},{"key":"6_CR9","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Beyer, D., Jakobs, M., Lemberger, T., Wehrheim, H.: Reducer-based construction of conditional verifiers. In: Chaudron, M., Crnkovic, I., Chechik, M., Harman, M. (eds.) ICSE. pp. 1182\u20131193. ACM (2018). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1145\/3180155.3180259","DOI":"10.1145\/3180155.3180259"},{"key":"6_CR10","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Beyer, D., Keremoglu, M.E.: CPAchecker: A tool for configurable software verification. In: Gopalakrishnan, G., Qadeer, S. (eds.) CAV. LNCS, vol.\u00a06806, pp. 184\u2013190. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2011). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-3-642-22110-1_16","DOI":"10.1007\/978-3-642-22110-1_16"},{"key":"6_CR11","unstructured":"Beyer, D., Keremoglu, M.E., Wendler, P.: Predicate abstraction with adjustable-block encoding. In: Bloem, R., Sharygina, N. (eds.) FMCAD. pp. 189\u2013197. IEEE, Washington, DC, USA (2010), http:\/\/ieeexplore.ieee.org\/document\/5770949\/"},{"key":"6_CR12","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Beyer, D., L\u00f6we, S., Wendler, P.: Reliable benchmarking: requirements and solutions. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. 21(1), 1\u201329 (2019). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s10009-017-0469-y","DOI":"10.1007\/s10009-017-0469-y"},{"key":"6_CR13","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Beyer, D., Wehrheim, H.: Verification artifacts in cooperative verification:survey and unifying component framework. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA. LNCS, vol. 12476, pp. 143\u2013167. Springer (2020). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-3-030-61362-4_8","DOI":"10.1007\/978-3-030-61362-4_8"},{"key":"6_CR14","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clarke, E.M., Strichman, O., Zhu, Y.: Bounded model checking. Advances in Computers 58, 117\u2013148 (2003). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/S0065-2458(03)58003-2","DOI":"10.1016\/S0065-2458(03)58003-2"},{"key":"6_CR15","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Blanchet, B., Cousot, P., Cousot, R., Feret, J., Mauborgne, L., Min\u00e9, A., Monniaux, D., Rival, X.: A static analyzer for large safety-critical software. In: Cytron, R., Gupta, R. (eds.) PLDI. pp. 196\u2013207. ACM (2003). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1145\/781131.781153","DOI":"10.1145\/781131.781153"},{"key":"6_CR16","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Bradley, A.R.: Sat-based model checking without unrolling. In: Jhala, R., Schmidt, D.A. (eds.) VMCAI. LNCS, vol.\u00a06538, pp. 70\u201387. Springer (2011). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-3-642-18275-4_7","DOI":"10.1007\/978-3-642-18275-4_7"},{"key":"6_CR17","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Brain, M., Joshi, S., Kroening, D., Schrammel, P.: Safety verification and refutation by k-invariants and k-induction. In: Blazy, S., Jensen, T.P. (eds.) SAS. LNCS, vol.\u00a09291, pp. 145\u2013161. Springer (2015). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-3-662-48288-9_9","DOI":"10.1007\/978-3-662-48288-9_9"},{"key":"6_CR18","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Christakis, M., M\u00fcller, P., W\u00fcstholz, V.: Collaborative verification and testing with explicit assumptions. In: Giannakopoulou, D., M\u00e9ry, D. (eds.) FM. LNCS, vol.\u00a07436, pp. 132\u2013146. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2012). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-3-642-32759-9_13","DOI":"10.1007\/978-3-642-32759-9_13"},{"key":"6_CR19","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Christakis, M., M\u00fcller, P., W\u00fcstholz, V.: Guiding dynamic symbolic execution toward unverified program executions. In: Dillon, L.K., Visser, W., Williams, L. (eds.) ICSE. pp. 144\u2013155. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2016). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1145\/2884781.2884843","DOI":"10.1145\/2884781.2884843"},{"key":"6_CR20","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Jha, S., Lu, Y., Veith, H.: Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement for symbolic model checking. J. ACM 50(5), 752\u2013794 (2003). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1145\/876638.876643","DOI":"10.1145\/876638.876643"},{"key":"6_CR21","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Csallner, C., Smaragdakis, Y.: Check \u2019n\u2019 crash: combining static checking and testing. In: Roman, G., Griswold, W.G., Nuseibeh, B. (eds.) ICSE. pp. 422\u2013431. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2005). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1145\/1062455.1062533","DOI":"10.1145\/1062455.1062533"},{"key":"6_CR22","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Csallner, C., Smaragdakis, Y., Xie, T.: DSD-Crasher: A hybrid analysis tool for bug finding. TOSEM 17(2), 8:1\u20138:37 (2008). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1145\/1348250.1348254","DOI":"10.1145\/1348250.1348254"},{"key":"6_CR23","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Czech, M., Jakobs, M., Wehrheim, H.: Just test what you cannot verify! In: Egyed, A., Schaefer, I. (eds.) FASE. LNCS, vol.\u00a09033, pp. 100\u2013114. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2015). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-3-662-46675-9_7","DOI":"10.1007\/978-3-662-46675-9_7"},{"key":"6_CR24","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Daca, P., Gupta, A., Henzinger, T.A.: Abstraction-driven concolic testing. In: Jobstmann, B., Leino, K.R.M. (eds.) VMCAI. LNCS, vol.\u00a09583, pp. 328\u2013347. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2016). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-3-662-49122-5_16","DOI":"10.1007\/978-3-662-49122-5_16"},{"key":"6_CR25","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Donaldson, A.F., Haller, L., Kroening, D., R\u00fcmmer, P.: Software verification using k-induction. In: Yahav, E. (ed.) SAS. LNCS, vol.\u00a06887, pp. 351\u2013368. Springer (2011). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-3-642-23702-7_26","DOI":"10.1007\/978-3-642-23702-7_26"},{"key":"6_CR26","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Ge, X., Taneja, K., Xie, T., Tillmann, N.: Dyta: dynamic symbolic execution guided with static verification results. In: Taylor, R.N., Gall, H.C., Medvidovic, N. (eds.) ICSE. pp. 992\u2013994. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2011). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1145\/1985793.1985971","DOI":"10.1145\/1985793.1985971"},{"key":"6_CR27","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Gupta, A., Rybalchenko, A.: Invgen: An efficient invariant generator. In: Bouajjani, A., Maler, O. (eds.) CAV. LNCS, vol.\u00a05643, pp. 634\u2013640. Springer (2009). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-3-642-02658-4_48","DOI":"10.1007\/978-3-642-02658-4_48"},{"key":"6_CR28","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Gurfinkel, A., Kahsai, T., Komuravelli, A., Navas, J.A.: The seahorn verification framework. In: Kroening, D., Pasareanu, C.S. (eds.) CAV. LNCS, vol.\u00a09206, pp. 343\u2013361. Springer (2015). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-3-319-21690-4_20","DOI":"10.1007\/978-3-319-21690-4_20"},{"key":"6_CR29","unstructured":"Haltermann, J., Wehrheim, H.: Cooperative Verification via Collective Invariant Generation. arXiv e-prints arXiv:2008.04551 (2020), https:\/\/arxiv.org\/abs\/2008.04551"},{"key":"6_CR30","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Heizmann, M., Chen, Y., Dietsch, D., Greitschus, M., Hoenicke, J., Li, Y., Nutz, A., Musa, B., Schilling, C., Schindler, T., Podelski, A.: Ultimate automizer and the search for perfect interpolants - (competition contribution). In: Beyer, D., Huisman, M. (eds.) TACAS. LNCS, vol. 10806, pp. 447\u2013451. Springer (2018). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-3-319-89963-3_30","DOI":"10.1007\/978-3-319-89963-3_30"},{"key":"6_CR31","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Heizmann, M., Hoenicke, J., Podelski, A.: Software model checking for people who love automata. In: Sharygina, N., Veith, H. (eds.) CAV. LNCS, vol.\u00a08044, pp. 36\u201352. Springer (2013). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-3-642-39799-8_2","DOI":"10.1007\/978-3-642-39799-8_2"},{"key":"6_CR32","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Henzinger, T.A., Jhala, R., Majumdar, R., McMillan, K.L.: Abstractions from proofs. In: Jones, N.D., Leroy, X. (eds.) POPL. pp. 232\u2013244. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2004). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1145\/964001.964021","DOI":"10.1145\/964001.964021"},{"key":"6_CR33","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Henzinger, T.A., Jhala, R., Majumdar, R., Sutre, G.: Lazy abstraction. In: Launchbury, J., Mitchell, J.C. (eds.) POPL. pp. 58\u201370. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2002). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1145\/503272.503279","DOI":"10.1145\/503272.503279"},{"key":"6_CR34","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Jakobs, M., Wehrheim, H.: Certification for configurable program analysis. In: Rungta, N., Tkachuk, O. (eds.) SPIN. pp. 30\u201339. LNCS, ACM, New York, NY, USA (2014). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1145\/2632362.2632372","DOI":"10.1145\/2632362.2632372"},{"key":"6_CR35","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Kirchner, F., Kosmatov, N., Prevosto, V., Signoles, J., Yakobowski, B.: Frama-c: A software analysis perspective. Formal Asp. Comput. 27(3), 573\u2013609 (2015). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00165-014-0326-7","DOI":"10.1007\/s00165-014-0326-7"},{"key":"6_CR36","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"McMillan, K.L.: Interpolation and model checking. In: Clarke, E.M., Henzinger, T.A., Veith, H., Bloem, R. (eds.) Handbook of Model Checking, pp. 421\u2013446. Springer (2018). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-3-319-10575-8_14","DOI":"10.1007\/978-3-319-10575-8_14"},{"key":"6_CR37","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Necula, G.C.: Proof-carrying code. In: Lee, P., Henglein, F., Jones, N.D. (eds.) POPL. pp. 106\u2013119. ACM Press, New York, NY, USA (1997). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1145\/263699.263712","DOI":"10.1145\/263699.263712"},{"key":"6_CR38","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Pauck, F., Wehrheim, H.: Together strong: cooperative Android app analysis. In: Dumas, M., Pfahl, D., Apel, S., Russo, A. (eds.) ASE. pp. 374\u2013384. ACM (2019). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1145\/3338906.3338915","DOI":"10.1145\/3338906.3338915"},{"key":"6_CR39","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Rocha, W., Rocha, H., Ismail, H., Cordeiro, L.C., Fischer, B.: Depthk: A k-induction verifier based on invariant inference for C programs - (competition contribution). In: Legay, A., Margaria, T. (eds.) TACAS. LNCS, vol. 10206, pp. 360\u2013364 (2017). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-3-662-54580-5_23","DOI":"10.1007\/978-3-662-54580-5_23"},{"key":"6_CR40","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Sankaranarayanan, S., Sipma, H.B., Manna, Z.: Scalable analysis of linear systems using mathematical programming. In: Cousot, R. (ed.) VMCAI. LNCS, vol.\u00a03385, pp. 25\u201341. Springer (2005). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-3-540-30579-8_2","DOI":"10.1007\/978-3-540-30579-8_2"},{"key":"6_CR41","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Schubert, P.D., Hermann, B., Bodden, E.: Phasar: An inter-procedural static analysis framework for C\/C++. In: Vojnar, T., Zhang, L. (eds.) TACAS. LNCS, vol. 11428, pp. 393\u2013410. Springer (2019). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-3-030-17465-1_22","DOI":"10.1007\/978-3-030-17465-1_22"}],"container-title":["Lecture Notes in Computer Science","Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"http:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1007\/978-3-030-71500-7_6","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2021,3,20]],"date-time":"2021-03-20T00:12:34Z","timestamp":1616199154000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"http:\/\/link.springer.com\/10.1007\/978-3-030-71500-7_6"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2021]]},"ISBN":["9783030714994","9783030715007"],"references-count":41,"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-3-030-71500-7_6","relation":{},"ISSN":["0302-9743","1611-3349"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0302-9743","type":"print"},{"value":"1611-3349","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2021]]},"assertion":[{"value":"20 March 2021","order":1,"name":"first_online","label":"First Online","group":{"name":"ChapterHistory","label":"Chapter History"}},{"value":"FASE","order":1,"name":"conference_acronym","label":"Conference Acronym","group":{"name":"ConferenceInfo","label":"Conference Information"}},{"value":"International Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering","order":2,"name":"conference_name","label":"Conference Name","group":{"name":"ConferenceInfo","label":"Conference Information"}},{"value":"Luxembourg City","order":3,"name":"conference_city","label":"Conference City","group":{"name":"ConferenceInfo","label":"Conference Information"}},{"value":"Luxembourg","order":4,"name":"conference_country","label":"Conference Country","group":{"name":"ConferenceInfo","label":"Conference Information"}},{"value":"2021","order":5,"name":"conference_year","label":"Conference Year","group":{"name":"ConferenceInfo","label":"Conference Information"}},{"value":"27 March 2021","order":7,"name":"conference_start_date","label":"Conference Start Date","group":{"name":"ConferenceInfo","label":"Conference Information"}},{"value":"1 April 2021","order":8,"name":"conference_end_date","label":"Conference End Date","group":{"name":"ConferenceInfo","label":"Conference Information"}},{"value":"24","order":9,"name":"conference_number","label":"Conference Number","group":{"name":"ConferenceInfo","label":"Conference Information"}},{"value":"fase2021","order":10,"name":"conference_id","label":"Conference ID","group":{"name":"ConferenceInfo","label":"Conference Information"}},{"value":"https:\/\/etaps.org\/2021\/fase","order":11,"name":"conference_url","label":"Conference URL","group":{"name":"ConferenceInfo","label":"Conference Information"}},{"value":"Double-blind","order":1,"name":"type","label":"Type","group":{"name":"ConfEventPeerReviewInformation","label":"Peer Review Information (provided by the conference organizers)"}},{"value":"EasyChair","order":2,"name":"conference_management_system","label":"Conference Management System","group":{"name":"ConfEventPeerReviewInformation","label":"Peer Review Information (provided by the conference organizers)"}},{"value":"52","order":3,"name":"number_of_submissions_sent_for_review","label":"Number of Submissions Sent for Review","group":{"name":"ConfEventPeerReviewInformation","label":"Peer Review Information (provided by the conference organizers)"}},{"value":"16","order":4,"name":"number_of_full_papers_accepted","label":"Number of Full Papers Accepted","group":{"name":"ConfEventPeerReviewInformation","label":"Peer Review Information (provided by the conference organizers)"}},{"value":"0","order":5,"name":"number_of_short_papers_accepted","label":"Number of Short Papers Accepted","group":{"name":"ConfEventPeerReviewInformation","label":"Peer Review Information (provided by the conference organizers)"}},{"value":"31% - The value is computed by the equation \"Number of Full Papers Accepted \/ Number of Submissions Sent for Review * 100\" and then rounded to a whole number.","order":6,"name":"acceptance_rate_of_full_papers","label":"Acceptance Rate of Full Papers","group":{"name":"ConfEventPeerReviewInformation","label":"Peer Review Information (provided by the conference organizers)"}},{"value":"3","order":7,"name":"average_number_of_reviews_per_paper","label":"Average Number of Reviews per Paper","group":{"name":"ConfEventPeerReviewInformation","label":"Peer Review Information (provided by the conference organizers)"}},{"value":"5,5","order":8,"name":"average_number_of_papers_per_reviewer","label":"Average Number of Papers per Reviewer","group":{"name":"ConfEventPeerReviewInformation","label":"Peer Review Information (provided by the conference organizers)"}},{"value":"Yes","order":9,"name":"external_reviewers_involved","label":"External Reviewers Involved","group":{"name":"ConfEventPeerReviewInformation","label":"Peer Review Information (provided by the conference organizers)"}},{"value":"The conference changed to an online format due to the COVID-19 pandemic.","order":10,"name":"additional_info_on_review_process","label":"Additional Info on Review Process","group":{"name":"ConfEventPeerReviewInformation","label":"Peer Review Information (provided by the conference organizers)"}}]}}