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

Adham Jabarin

dblp:366/7216 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Logic in computer science › proof theory › structural proof theory
cyclic proof
0.812024
The Complex(ity) Landscape of Checking Infinite Descent · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2024
Computational complexity
parameterized complexity
0.812024
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
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2024 The Complex(ity) Landscape of Checking Infinite Descent
abstract
Cyclic 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