Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Alan F. Babich

dblp:13/6052 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 1979
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 first-author

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Program verification · 77% Concurrent programming · 23%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Program verification
parallel program correctness
0.011979
Proving Total Correctness of Parallel Programs · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1979
Program verification › correctness proof
total correctness
0.011979
Proving Total Correctness of Parallel Programs · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1979
Concurrent programming
parallel programming models
0.011979
Proving Total Correctness of Parallel Programs · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1979
Concurrent programming
synchronization
0.011979
Proving Total Correctness of Parallel Programs · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1979

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

variant functions · 0.0partial correctness proof · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
1979 Proving Total Correctness of Parallel Programs
abstract
An approach to proving paralel programs correct is presented. The steps are 1) model the paralel program, 2) prove partial correctness (proper synchronization), and 3) prove the absence of deadlock, livelock, and infinite loops. The parallel program model is based on KeUler's model. The main contributions of the paper are techniques for proving the absence of deadlock and livelock. A connection is made between Keler's work and Dijkstra's work with serial non-deterministic programs. It is shown how a variant function may be used to prove finite termination, even if the variant function is not strictly decreasing, and how finite termination can be used to prove the absence of livelock. Handling of the finite delay assumption is also discussed. The illustrative examples indude one which occurred in a commercial environment and a classic synchronization problem solved without the aid of special synchronization primitives.
Alan F. Babich
IEEE Trans. Software Eng.1