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

Prathmesh Prabhu

dblp:121/4323 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2017
—ORCID · none

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 2Computer networks · 1

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
2 papers
Program analysis · 50% Program verification · 50%
Theoretical computer science
2 papers
Mathematical optimization · 100%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Program analysis › data flow analysis
interprocedural dataflow analysis
0.522017
Newtonian Program Analysis via Tensor Product · ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 2017
Newtonian program analysis via tensor product · POPL 2016
Program verification › abstraction-based verification
predicate abstraction
0.522017
Newtonian Program Analysis via Tensor Product · ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 2017
Newtonian program analysis via tensor product · POPL 2016
Mathematical optimization
fixed point computation
0.312017
Newtonian Program Analysis via Tensor Product · ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 2017
Mathematical optimization › numerical computation › numerical optimization › second-order methods
newton's method
0.112016
Newtonian program analysis via tensor product · POPL 2016

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

tensor product · 1.1linear context-free language solving · 0.6semiring equations · 0.5newton's method · 0.5
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2017 Newtonian Program Analysis via Tensor Product
abstract
Recently, Esparza et al. generalized Newton’s method—a numerical-analysis algorithm for finding roots of real-valued functions—to a method for finding fixed-points of systems of equations over semirings. Their method provides a new way to solve interprocedural dataflow-analysis problems. As in its real-valued counterpart, each iteration of their method solves a simpler “linearized” problem. One of the reasons this advance is exciting is that some numerical analysts have claimed that “‘all’ effective and fast iterative [numerical] methods are forms (perhaps very disguised) of Newton’s method.” However, there is an important difference between the dataflow-analysis and numerical-analysis contexts: When Newton’s method is used in numerical-analysis problems, commutativity of multiplication is relied on to rearrange an expression of the form “ a * X * b + c * X * d ” into “( a * b + c * d )* X .” Equations with such expressions correspond to path problems described by regular languages. In contrast, when Newton’s method is used for interprocedural dataflow analysis, the “multiplication” operation involves function composition and hence is non-commutative: “ a * X * b + c * X * d ” cannot be rearranged into “( a * b + c * d )* X .” Equations with such expressions correspond to path problems described by linear context-free languages (LCFLs). In this article, we present an improved technique for solving the LCFL sub-problems produced during successive rounds of Newton’s method. Our method applies to predicate abstraction, on which most of today’s software model checkers rely.
Thomas W. Reps, Emma Turetsky, Prathmesh Prabhu
ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst.3
2016 Newtonian program analysis via tensor product
abstract
Recently, Esparza et al. generalized Newton's method -- a numerical-analysis algorithm for finding roots of real-valued functions---to a method for finding fixed-points of systems of equations over semirings. Their method provides a new way to solve interprocedural dataflow-analysis problems. As in its real-valued counterpart, each iteration of their method solves a simpler ``linearized'' problem. One of the reasons this advance is exciting is that some numerical analysts have claimed that ```all' effective and fast iterative [numerical] methods are forms (perhaps very disguised) of Newton's method.'' However, there is an important difference between the dataflow-analysis and numerical-analysis contexts: when Newton's method is used on numerical-analysis problems, multiplicative commutativity is relied on to rearrange expressions of the form ``c*X + X*d'' into ``(c+d) * X.'' Such equations correspond to path problems described by regular languages. In contrast, when Newton's method is used for interprocedural dataflow analysis, the ``multiplication'' operation involves function composition, and hence is non-commutative: ``c*X + X*d'' cannot be rearranged into ``(c+d) * X.'' Such equations correspond to path problems described by linear context-free languages (LCFLs). In this paper, we present an improved technique for solving the LCFL sub-problems produced during successive rounds of Newton's method. Our method applies to predicate abstraction, on which most of today's software model checkers rely.
Thomas W. Reps, Emma Turetsky, Prathmesh Prabhu
POPL3
2012 Toward software-defined middlebox networking
abstract
Current middlebox (MB) management mechanisms are clumsy and unsuitable for taking full advantage of new MB deployment models and diverse MB functionality. Instead, we advocate for mechanisms that help exercise unified control over the key factors influencing MB operations. Our goal is to realize a software-defined MB networking framework to simplify management of complex, diverse functionalities and engender rich deployments. We discuss the major challenges that arise---representing, manipulating, and knowledgeably controlling MB state---and we present initial thoughts on the appropriate abstractions and interfaces to address them.
Aaron Gember, Prathmesh Prabhu, Zainab Ghadiyali, Aditya Akella
HotNets2