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

Eric Lu

dblp:172/6890 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
0as first author
2since 2021 · last 2024
0000-0003-1228-9887ORCID · reported

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 2 · 1 since 2021Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 since 2021

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.

Theoretical computer science
1 paper
Mathematical optimization · 50% Approximation and online algorithms · 38% Computational complexity · 12%
Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Graph learning · 100%
Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Operating systems · 77% Compilers and program optimization · 23%

Topics — the 7 heaviest of 8, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Graph learning
graph neural network
0.812024
Are Graph Neural Networks Optimal Approximation Algorithms? · NeurIPS 2024
Machine learning › Graph learning › graph neural network
message passing
0.812024
Are Graph Neural Networks Optimal Approximation Algorithms? · NeurIPS 2024
Approximation and online algorithms
approximation algorithms
0.812024
Are Graph Neural Networks Optimal Approximation Algorithms? · NeurIPS 2024
Mathematical optimization › convex relaxation
semidefinite relaxation
0.812024
Are Graph Neural Networks Optimal Approximation Algorithms? · NeurIPS 2024
Mathematical optimization
combinatorial optimization
0.212024
Are Graph Neural Networks Optimal Approximation Algorithms? · NeurIPS 2024
Computational complexity › constraint satisfaction
Max-CSP
0.212024
Are Graph Neural Networks Optimal Approximation Algorithms? · NeurIPS 2024
Compilers and program optimization › code generation
assembly code generation
0.212023
Towards Porting Operating Systems with Program Synthesis · ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 2023

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

semidefinite programming · 1.5convex relaxation · 1.5symbolic execution · 0.7program specialization · 0.7domain-specific language · 0.7
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2024 Are Graph Neural Networks Optimal Approximation Algorithms?
abstract
In this work we design graph neural network architectures that capture optimal approximation algorithms for a large class of combinatorial optimization problems, using powerful algorithmic tools from semidefinite programming (SDP). Concretely, we prove that polynomial-sized message-passing algorithms can represent the most powerful polynomial time algorithms for Max Constraint Satisfaction Problems assuming the Unique Games Conjecture. We leverage this result to construct efficient graph neural network architectures, OptGNN, that obtain high quality approximate solutions on landmark combinatorial optimization problems such as Max-Cut, Min-Vertex-Cover, and Max-3-SAT. Our approach achieves strong empirical results across a wide range of real-world and synthetic datasets against solvers and neural baselines. Finally, we take advantage of OptGNN’s ability to capture convex relaxations to design an algorithm for producing bounds on the optimal solution from the learned embeddings of OptGNN.
Morris Yau, Nikolaos Karalias, Eric Lu, Jessica Xu, Stefanie Jegelka
NeurIPS3
2023 Towards Porting Operating Systems with Program Synthesis
abstract
The end of Moore’s Law has ushered in a diversity of hardware not seen in decades. Operating system (OS) (and system software) portability is accordingly becoming increasingly critical. Simultaneously, there has been tremendous progress in program synthesis. We set out to explore the feasibility of using modern program synthesis to generate the machine-dependent parts of an operating system. Our ultimate goal is to generate new ports automatically from descriptions of new machines. One of the issues involved is writing specifications, both for machine-dependent operating system functionality and for instruction set architectures. We designed two domain-specific languages: Alewife for machine-independent specifications of machine-dependent operating system functionality and Cassiopea for describing instruction set architecture semantics. Automated porting also requires an implementation. We developed a toolchain that, given an Alewife specification and a Cassiopea machine description, specializes the machine-independent specification to the target instruction set architecture and synthesizes an implementation in assembly language with a customized symbolic execution engine. Using this approach, we demonstrate the successful synthesis of a total of 140 OS components from two pre-existing OSes for four real hardware platforms. We also developed several optimization methods for OS-related assembly synthesis to improve scalability. The effectiveness of our languages and ability to synthesize code for all 140 specifications is evidence of the feasibility of program synthesis for machine-dependent OS code. However, many research challenges remain; we also discuss the benefits and limitations of our synthesis-based approach to automated OS porting.
Jingmei Hu, Eric Lu, David A. Holland, Ming Kawaguchi, Stephen Chong, Margo I. Seltzer
ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst.2
2019 Trials and Tribulations in Synthesizing Operating Systems
abstract
Recent advances in program synthesis convinced us that it was the right time to transform the process of porting an operating system into a program synthesis problem. We set out to synthesize the needed machine dependent code for an existing operating system. This undertaking proved far more challenging than we anticipated. We summarize our experience and lessons learned and propose next steps in realizing such an undertaking.
Jingmei Hu, Eric Lu, David A. Holland, Ming Kawaguchi, Stephen Chong, Margo I. Seltzer
PLOS@SOSP2