VLDB 2026 Research / reviewers in the wild / expert
Rivi Sherman
dblp:24/4645
· DBLP profile ↗
8ranked-venue papers
2as first author
0since 2021 · last 1990
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Theory of computation · 5 · 1 first-authorSoftware engineering, systems software and programming languages · 3 · 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.
| Theoretical computer science
5 papers |
Logic in computer science · 83% Automated reasoning and model checking · 15% Automata and formal languages · 2% | |
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
2 papers |
Requirements engineering and software design · 79% Program synthesis and code generation · 21% |
Topics — the 13 heaviest of 15, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Program synthesis and code generation › generative programming
code generation from specifications |
0.0 | 1 | 1990 | STATEMATE: A Working Environment for the Development of Complex Reactive Systems · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1990 |
Requirements engineering and software design
reactive systems |
0.0 | 1 | 1990 | STATEMATE: A Working Environment for the Development of Complex Reactive Systems · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1990 |
Requirements engineering and software design › software modeling
statecharts |
0.0 | 1 | 1990 | STATEMATE: A Working Environment for the Development of Complex Reactive Systems · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1990 |
Logic in computer science › modal logic
dynamic logic |
0.0 | 2 | 1985 | Propositional Dynamic Logic of Flowcharts · Inf. Control. 1985 Looping vs. Repeating in Dynamic Logic · Inf. Control. 1982 |
Logic in computer science
modal logic |
0.0 | 2 | 1984 | Is the Interesting Part of Process Logic Uninteresting? A Translation from PL to PDL · SIAM J. Comput. 1984 Looping vs. Repeating in Dynamic Logic · Inf. Control. 1982 |
Logic in computer science › modal logic › dynamic logic
propositional dynamic logic |
0.0 | 2 | 1984 | Is the Interesting Part of Process Logic Uninteresting? A Translation from PL to PDL · SIAM J. Comput. 1984 Is the Interesting Part of Process Logic Uninteresting - A Translation from PL to PDL · POPL 1982 |
Logic in computer science
formal semantics |
0.0 | 1 | 1987 | On the Formal Semantics of Statecharts (Extended Abstract) · LICS 1987 |
Logic in computer science › formal semantics
statecharts semantics |
0.0 | 1 | 1987 | On the Formal Semantics of Statecharts (Extended Abstract) · LICS 1987 |
Automated reasoning and model checking
program verification |
0.0 | 1 | 1985 | Propositional Dynamic Logic of Flowcharts · Inf. Control. 1985 |
Logic in computer science
program logic |
0.0 | 2 | 1984 | Is the Interesting Part of Process Logic Uninteresting - A Translation from PL to PDL · POPL 1982 Is the Interesting Part of Process Logic Uninteresting? A Translation from PL to PDL · SIAM J. Comput. 1984 |
Logic in computer science › modal logic › dynamic logic
process logic |
0.0 | 1 | 1982 | Is the Interesting Part of Process Logic Uninteresting - A Translation from PL to PDL · POPL 1982 |
Automated reasoning and model checking › automated reasoning
validity problem |
0.0 | 1 | 1982 | Is the Interesting Part of Process Logic Uninteresting - A Translation from PL to PDL · POPL 1982 |
Embedded and real-time systems
reactive systems |
0.0 | 1 | 1988 | STATEMATE; A Working Environment for the Development of Complex Reactive Systems · ICSE 1988 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
statecharts · 0.0simulation · 0.0validity testing · 0.0translation algorithm · 0.0formula translation · 0.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1990 | STATEMATE: A Working Environment for the Development of Complex Reactive SystemsabstractSTATEMATE is a set of tools, with a heavy graphical orientation, intended for the specification, analysis, design, and documentation of large and complex reactive systems. It enables a user to prepare, analyze, and debug diagrammatic, yet precise, descriptions of the system under development from three interrelated points of view, capturing structure, functionality, and behavior. These views are represented by three graphical languages, the most intricate of which is the language of statecharts, used to depict reactive behavior over time. In addition to the use of statecharts, the main novelty of STATEMATE is in the fact that it understands the entire descriptions perfectly, to the point of being able to analyze them for crucial dynamic properties, to carry out rigorous executions and simulations of the described system, and to create running code automatically. These features are invaluable when it comes to the quality and reliability of the final outcome.> David Harel, Hagi Lachover, Amnon Naamad, Amir Pnueli, Michal Politi, Rivi Sherman, Aharon Shtull-Trauring, Mark B. Trakhtenbrot |
IEEE Trans. Software Eng. | 6 |
| 1988 | STATEMATE; A Working Environment for the Development of Complex Reactive Systems
David Harel, Hagi Lachover, Amnon Naamad, Amir Pnueli, Michal Politi, Rivi Sherman, Aharon Shtull-Trauring |
ICSE | 6 |
| 1987 | On the Formal Semantics of Statecharts (Extended Abstract)
David Harel, Amir Pnueli, Jeanette P. Schmidt, Rivi Sherman |
LICS | 4 |
| 1985 | Propositional Dynamic Logic of Flowcharts
David Harel, Rivi Sherman |
Inf. Control. | 2 |
| 1984 | Is the Interesting Part of Process Logic Uninteresting? A Translation from PL to PDLabstractWith the (necessary) condition that atomic programs in process logic (PL) be binary, we present an algorithm for the translation of a PL formula p into a program $\zeta (p)$ of propositional dynamic logic (PDL) such that a finite path satisfies p if it belongs to $\zeta (p)$. This reduction has two immediate corollaries: 1) validity in this PL can be tested by testing validity of formulas in PDL; 2) all state properties expressible in this PL are expressible in PDL. The translation, however, is of nonelementary time complexity.The significance of the result to the search for natural and powerful logics of programs is discussed. Rivi Sherman, Amir Pnueli, David Harel |
SIAM J. Comput. | 1 |
| 1983 | Propositional Dynamic Logic of Flowcharts
David Harel, Rivi Sherman |
FCT | 2 |
| 1982 | Is the Interesting Part of Process Logic Uninteresting - A Translation from PL to PDLabstractWith the (necessary) condition that atomic programs in PL be binary, we present an algorithm for the translation of a PL formula X into a PDL program τ (X) such that a finite path satisfies X iff it belongs to τ (X). This reduction has two immediate corollaries: 1) validity in this PL can be tested by testing validity of formulas in PDL; 2) all finite-path program properties expressible in this PL are expressible in PDL.The translation, however, seems to be of non-elementary time complexity. The significance of the result to the search for natural and powerful logics of programs is discussed. Rivi Sherman, Amir Pnueli, David Harel |
POPL | 1 |
| 1982 | Looping vs. Repeating in Dynamic Logic
David Harel, Rivi Sherman |
Inf. Control. | 2 |