Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Adham Jabarin
dblp:366/7216
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2024
0009-0006-1519-7661ORCID · reported
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 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 |
Logic in computer science · 50% Computational complexity · 50% |
Topics — the 2 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Logic in computer science › proof theory › structural proof theory
cyclic proof |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | The Complex(ity) Landscape of Checking Infinite Descent · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2024 |
Computational complexity
parameterized complexity |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | The Complex(ity) Landscape of Checking Infinite Descent · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2024 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
relational abstraction · 0.8büchi automata encoding · 0.8
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | The Complex(ity) Landscape of Checking Infinite DescentabstractCyclic proof systems, in which induction is managed implicitly, are a promising approach to automatic verification. The soundness of cyclic proof graphs is ensured by checking them against a trace-based Infinite Descent property. Although the problem of checking Infinite Descent is known to be PSPACE-complete, this leaves much room for variation in practice. Indeed, a number of different approaches are employed across the various cyclic proof systems described in the literature. In this paper, we study criteria for Infinite Descent in an abstract, logic-independent setting. We look at criteria based on Büchi automata encodings and relational abstractions, and determine their parameterized time complexities in terms of natural dimensions of cyclic proofs: the numbers of vertices of the proof-tree graphs, and the vertex width —an upper bound on the number of components (e.g., formulas) of a sequent that can be simultaneously tracked for descent. We identify novel algorithms that improve upon the parameterised complexity of the existing algorithms. We implement the studied criteria and compare their performance on various benchmarks. Liron Cohen 0001, Adham Jabarin, Andrei Popescu 0001, Reuben N. S. Rowe |
Proc. ACM Program. Lang. | 2 |