An empirical evaluation of Lex/Yacc and ANTLR parser generation tools.

Ortin F, Quiroga J, Rodriguez-Prieto O, Garcia M

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0264326
Published: 2022
Container: PloS one
Publisher: Not recorded
Open access: yes

Credibility signals

limited evidence Score 45/100 under policy 1.0.0. This is a metadata assessment, not a judgment of the paper's conclusions.

Show all credibility signals

cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response. Source: Crossref; license: CC0 metadata
cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response. Source: Crossref; license: CC0 metadata
not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility. Source: DOAJ; license: CC0
not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
supportingOpen access status: Normalized open-access status: open. Source: Normalized work metadata; license: Caller-provided; provenance license not supplied to scorer
not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored. Source: Normalized work metadata; license: Caller-provided; provenance license not supplied to scorer
cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty. Source: Normalized work metadata; license: Caller-provided; provenance license not supplied to scorer

Cite this work

BibTeX

@article{allodium:10.1371/journal.pone.0264326,
  title = {An empirical evaluation of Lex/Yacc and ANTLR parser generation tools.},
  author = {Ortin F and Quiroga J and Rodriguez-Prieto O and Garcia M},
  year = {2022},
  journal = {PloS one},
  doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0264326},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264326}
}

RIS

TY  - JOUR
TI  - An empirical evaluation of Lex/Yacc and ANTLR parser generation tools.
AU  - Ortin F
AU  - Quiroga J
AU  - Rodriguez-Prieto O
AU  - Garcia M
PY  - 2022
JO  - PloS one
DO  - 10.1371/journal.pone.0264326
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264326
ER  -

APA

F, O., J, Q., O, R., & M, G. (2022). An empirical evaluation of Lex/Yacc and ANTLR parser generation tools.. PloS one. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264326

Source records

pubmed · retrieved 2026-09-25T05:46:00.936Z