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

Stuart F. Allen

dblp:06/62 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
2as first author
0since 2021 · last 2000
—ORCID · none

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

Theory of computation · 2 · 2 first-authorArtificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 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
1 paper
Logic in computer science · 100%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Logic in computer science
proof theory
0.011990
The Semantics of Reflected Proof · LICS 1990
Logic in computer science › proof theory
reflection
0.011990
The Semantics of Reflected Proof · LICS 1990

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

metalanguage-object language mapping · 0.0fixed point construction · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2000 The Nuprl Open Logical Environment
Stuart F. Allen, Robert L. Constable, Richard Eaton, Christoph Kreitz, Lori Lorigo
CADE1
1990 The Semantics of Reflected Proof
abstract
The authors lay the foundations for reasoning about proofs whose steps include both invocations of programs to build subproofs (tactics) and references to representations of proofs themselves (reflected proofs). The main result is the definition of a single type of proof which can mention itself, using a novel technique which finds a fixed point of a mapping between metalanguage and object language. This single type contrasts with hierarchies of types used in other approaches to accomplish the same classification. It is shown that these proofs are valid, and that every proof can be reduced to a proof involving only primitive inference rules. The extension of the results to proofs from which programs (such as tactics) can be derive and to proofs that can refer to a library of definitions and previously proven theorems is shown. It is believed that the mechanism of reflection is fundamental in building proof development systems, and its power is illustrated with applications to automating reasoning and describing modes of computation.>
Stuart F. Allen, Robert L. Constable, Douglas J. Howe, William E. Aitken
LICS1