Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Nathan Grewal
dblp:319/5353
· DBLP profile ↗
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
2since 2021 · last 2024
0000-0001-7955-5049ORCID · corroborated
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 since 2021Theory of computation · 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 |
Automated reasoning and model checking · 44% Combinatorics and discrete mathematics · 44% Computational complexity · 13% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Automated reasoning and model checking › constraint solving
string constraint solving |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | On the Expressive Power of String Constraints · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2023 |
Combinatorics and discrete mathematics › combinatorics on words
word equations |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | On the Expressive Power of String Constraints · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2023 |
Computational complexity
decidability |
0.2 | 1 | 2023 | On the Expressive Power of String Constraints · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2023 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
language class comparison · 0.7expressibility reduction · 0.7
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | A Closer Look at the Expressive Power of Logics Based on Word EquationsabstractAbstract Word equations are equations $$\alpha \doteq \beta $$ α ≐ β where $$\alpha $$ α and $$\beta $$ β are words consisting of letters from some alphabet $$\Sigma $$ Σ and variables from a set X. Recently, there has been substantial interest in the context of string solving in logics combining word equations with other kinds of constraints on words such as (regular) language membership (regular constraints) and arithmetic over string lengths (length constraints). We consider the expressive power of such logics by looking at the set of all values a single variable might take as part of a satisfying assignment for a given formula. Hence, each formula-variable pair defines a formal language, and each logic defines a class of formal languages. We consider logics arising from combining word equations with either length constraints, regular constraints, or both. We also consider word equations with visibly pushdown language membership constraints as a generalisation of the combination of regular and length constraints. We show that word equations with visibly pushdown membership constraints are sufficient to express all recursively enumerable languages and hence satisfiability is undecidable in this case. We then establish a strict hierarchy involving the other combinations. We also provide a complete characterisation of when a thin regular language is expressible by word equations (alone) and some further partial results for regular languages in the general case. Joel D. Day, Vijay Ganesh 0001, Nathan Grewal, Matthew Konefal, Florin Manea |
Theory Comput. Syst. | 3 |
| 2023 | On the Expressive Power of String ConstraintsabstractWe investigate properties of strings which are expressible by canonical types of string constraints. Specifically, we consider a landscape of 20 logical theories, whose syntax is built around combinations of four common elements of string constraints: language membership (e.g. for regular languages), concatenation, equality between string terms, and equality between string-lengths. For a variable x and formula f from a given theory, we consider the set of values for which x may be substituted as part of a satisfying assignment, or in other words, the property f expresses through x. Since we consider string-based logics, this set is a formal language. We firstly consider the relative expressive power of different combinations of string constraints by comparing the classes of languages expressible in the corresponding theories, and are able to establish a mostly complete picture in this regard. Secondly, we consider the question of deciding whether the language or property expressed by a variable/formula in one theory can be expressed in another theory. We establish several negative results which are relevant to preprocessing and normalisation of string constraints in practice. Some of our results have strong connections to important open problems regarding word equations and the theory of string solving. Joel D. Day, Vijay Ganesh 0001, Nathan Grewal, Florin Manea |
Proc. ACM Program. Lang. | 3 |