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

Ashley Lin

dblp:380/9744 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
2since 2021 · last 2024
0009-0007-6360-904XORCID · reported

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 since 2021Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 since 2021Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 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.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Program verification · 100%
Network and information security
1 paper
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Program verification › mechanized verification
foundational verification
0.812024
Foundational Integration Verification of a Cryptographic Server · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2024
Program verification › proof assistants
proof engineering
0.812024
Foundational Integration Verification of a Cryptographic Server · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2024
Program verification › system verification
verified systems
0.812024
Foundational Integration Verification of a Cryptographic Server · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2024

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

verification condition generation · 1.5symbolic execution · 1.5separation logic · 1.5omnisemantics · 1.5interactive verification · 1.5computer algebra · 1.5
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2024 Introducing the AI Governance and Regulatory Archive (AGORA): An Analytic Infrastructure for Navigating the Emerging AI Governance Landscape
abstract
AI-related laws, standards, and norms are emerging rapidly. However, a lack of shared descriptive concepts and monitoring infrastructure undermine efforts to track, understand, and improve AI governance. We introduce AGORA (the AI Governance and Regulatory Archive), a rigorously compiled and enriched dataset of AI-focused laws and policies encompassing diverse jurisdictions, institutions, and contexts related to AI. AGORA is oriented around an original taxonomy describing risks, potential harms, governance strategies, incentives for compliance, and application domains addressed in AI regulatory documents. At launch, AGORA included data on over 330 instruments, with new entries being added continuously. We describe the manual and automated processes through which these data are systematically compiled, screened, annotated, and validated, enabling deep, efficient, and reliable analysis of the emerging AI governance landscape. The dataset, supporting information, and analyses are available through a public web interface (https://agora.eto.tech) and bulk dataset.
Zachary Arnold, Daniel S. Schiff, Kaylyn Jackson Schiff, Brian Love, Jennifer Melot, Lindsay Jenkins, Ashley Lin, Konstantin Pilz, Ogadinma Enweareazu, Tyler Girard
AIES (1)8
2024 Foundational Integration Verification of a Cryptographic Server
abstract
We present verification of a bare-metal server built using diverse implementation techniques and languages against a whole-system input-output specification in terms of machine code, network packets, and mathematical specifications of elliptic-curve cryptography. We used very different formal-reasoning techniques throughout the stack, ranging from computer algebra, symbolic execution, and verification-condition generation to interactive verification of functional programs including compilers for C-like and functional languages. All these component specifications and domain-specific reasoning techniques are defined and justified against common foundations in the Coq proof assistant. Connecting these components is a minimalistic specification style based on functional programs and assertions over simple objects, omnisemantics for program execution, and basic separation logic for memory layout. This design enables us to bring the components together in a top-level correctness theorem that can be audited without understanding or trusting the internal interfaces and tools. Our case study is a simple cryptographic server for flipping of a bit of state through public-key authenticated network messages, and its proof shows total functional correctness including static bounds on memory usage. This paper also describes our experiences with the specific verification tools we build upon, along with detailed analysis of reasons behind the widely varying levels of productivity we experienced between combinations of tools and tasks.
Andres Erbsen, Jade Philipoom, Dustin Jamner, Ashley Lin, Samuel Gruetter, Clément Pit-Claudel, Adam Chlipala
Proc. ACM Program. Lang.4