Formal Verification of Code Conversion: A Comprehensive Survey

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

OVERVIEW

The authors present the first survey on formal verification approaches used in code conversion.  The reviewed approaches are categorized from two perspectives: the form of code conversion, and the approach of verification.

The authors consider thirty-one publications edited from 2014 to 2024
and identify three topics: code transformation, code-to-code
translation, and code generation.

As the categorization is new, we believe the survey should be accepted.

The article is well written, but we are not 100% sure all sentences are correct w.r.t. English. Having a native English speaker proofread the text before publication may be a good idea.

NOTES

line 141: "Year limits 2014 to 2014"
do you mean "year limits 2014 to 2024"?

line 404: "Then, they defined"
"they" is not clear. We assume it refers to the authors of [67].
So: "The authors defined"

line 410:
"Compiler verification through theorem proving is considered the only
optimizer verification approach for the category of code optimization."
We do not understand this sentence. Who considers? The authors of
the survey? The authors of some publications?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The article is well written, but we are not 100% sure all sentences are correct w.r.t. English. Having a native English speaker proofread the text before publication may be a good idea.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper systematically reviews formal verification techniques for code conversion. These techniques cover code optimization, code translation, and model-based code generation. The authors analyze the strengths and limitations of the current approaches. Based on the analysis results, this paper presents several future research directions for code conversion.

 

 

Pros.

+ The structure of the paper is clear and easy to follow.

+ The paper discusses the strengths and limitations of the current approaches, and these results may guide researchers in future works.

 

Cons.

- This paper discusses numerous formal validation approaches. However, this paper does not provide a case to show the importance of formal validation. This hurts the potential of attracting readers.

- This paper does not provide a clear process for collecting literature.

 

Comments.

 

1.     This paper employs several terminologies, such as code conversion and functional validation. However, in Section 1, this paper does not introduce the definition of these terminologies, which can help readers further understand this research area. A paper should provide basic knowledge for all readers, not only for persons who have already known the work.

2.     In Section 1, this paper should provide an example of details of formal verification to assist readers in understanding the related knowledge of formal verification.

3.     This paper lacks a comparison of key approaches, which assist researchers in understanding the benefits and weaknesses of these approaches.

4.     This paper clearly shows the research gap in code conversion. However, this paper lacks a research motivation to support your work. For example, you should highlight the challenges in different types of code conversion.

5.     In Section 2, there is so little related literature that it does not provide a clear research state for code conversion.

6.     This paper highlights the important role of SMT (Satisfiable Modulo Theories) solvers in various verification methods. However, this paper does not show how SMT solvers integrate into the process of code verification and the limitations of SMT.

7.     This paper barely mentions the application of formal verification techniques in industry and the role of large-scale projects.

8.     This paper does not provide a clear research roadmap. The paper is a simple categorization and listing of the current research literature on code conversion.

9.     In Section Four, flow diagrams of state machines and code snippets of symbolic execution are very helpful for the reader to understand these principles.

10. This paper summarizes the current research approaches for code conversion. However, in Paragraph Three of Section Three, this paper does not explain the reason for excluding literature before 2014.

11.  The paper mentions several areas for future research. However, this paper does not have a section to clarify the next research step.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

None. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors present the first survey on formal verification approaches
used in code conversion and categorize the reviewed approaches from two perspectives: the form of code conversion and the verification approach.

The authors consider thirty-one publications edited from 2014 to 2024
and identify three topics: code transformation, code-to-code translation, and code generation.

The authors added a lot of valuable information to the previous version
of the article and corrected some mistakes.

As the categorization is new, we believe the editors should accept this survey.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The authors claim in the cover letter that they proofread the paper
and rechecked it with Grammarly.

However, we found some errors when using Grammarly.

For instance, Grammarly suggests correcting the highlighted sentence:  "Example of motion of loop invariant is shown in Fig. 7." as: "An example of the motion of the loop invariant is shown in Fig. 7." showing that articles are missing.

Indeed, Figure 7 shows just one example, so "An" in front of "Example of .." is mandatory.

Therefore, we recognize that the article is well-written enough, but we are not sure all sentences are 100% correct.

Author Response

1. Comments and Suggestions for Authors The authors present the first survey on formal verification approaches used in code conversion and categorize the reviewed approaches from two perspectives: the form of code conversion and the verification approach.   The authors consider thirty-one publications edited from 2014 to 2024 and identify three topics: code transformation, code-to-code translation, and code generation.   The authors added a lot of valuable information to the previous version of the article and corrected some mistakes.   As the categorization is new, we believe the editors should accept this survey.   Response: Thank you for your Review. We appreciate your opinion on the submitted manuscript.

2. Comments on the Quality of English Language

The authors claim in the cover letter that they proofread the paper

and rechecked it with Grammarly.

 

However, we found some errors when using Grammarly.

 

For instance, Grammarly suggests correcting the highlighted sentence:  "Example of motion of loop invariant is shown in Fig. 7." as: "An example of the motion of the loop invariant is shown in Fig. 7." showing that articles are missing.

 

Indeed, Figure 7 shows just one example, so "An" in front of "Example of .." is mandatory.

 

Therefore, we recognize that the article is well-written enough, but we are not sure all sentences are 100% correct.

 

Response: Thank you for pointing out this comment. We have sent the paper to the English department in Nile University to be proofread by language experts. We have attached the stamped letter from the English department.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This revised version is clear. The author responds effectively to the previous comments in the review. In several sections, the author have improved the structure of the paper and strengthened the logic of the content. Overall, this revision has greatly improved the quality of the paper.

However, this revised version still needs to be proofread in several places, for example, Figure 4 and Figure 5 are overlapping. Please check the entire paper.

Author Response

1. Comments and Suggestions for Authors This revised version is clear. The author responds effectively to the previous comments in the review. In several sections, the author have improved the structure of the paper and strengthened the logic of the content. Overall, this revision has greatly improved the quality of the paper. However, this revised version still needs to be proofread in several places, for example, Figure 4 and Figure 5 are overlapping. Please check the entire paper.   Response: Thank you for your Review. We have noticed the problem in Figures 4 and 5. We have solved the overlapping in the text in Fig. 4, we have also summarized figure five for readability. After revision we noticed that fig.7 is not very clear too, so we enhanced it. Furthermore, we have sent the paper to the English department in Nile university to be proofread. Attached the stamped letter from the English department. We appreciate your efforts in reviewing this paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf