EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Germán Andrés Delbianco
dblp:130/4256
· DBLP profile ↗
6ranked-venue papers
2as first author
1since 2021 · last 2021
0000-0002-2249-1168ORCID · verified
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 6 · 2 first-author · 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
3 papers |
Program verification · 64% Concurrent programming · 13% Operating systems · 13% | |
| Theoretical computer science
1 paper |
Logic in computer science · 100% |
Topics — the 10 heaviest of 11, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Program verification › program logic
separation logic |
0.9 | 2 | 2021 | On algebraic abstractions for concurrent separation logics · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2021 Specifying concurrent programs in separation logic: morphisms and simulations · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2019 |
Program verification › program logic › separation logic
concurrent separation logic |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | On algebraic abstractions for concurrent separation logics · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2021 |
Operating systems › resource management › memory management
ownership transfer |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | On algebraic abstractions for concurrent separation logics · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2021 |
Logic in computer science › algebraic logic
algebraic semantics |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | On algebraic abstractions for concurrent separation logics · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2021 |
Program verification › proof assistants
proof reuse |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Specifying concurrent programs in separation logic: morphisms and simulations · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2019 |
Programming languages and type systems
state transition systems |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Specifying concurrent programs in separation logic: morphisms and simulations · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2019 |
Concurrent programming › concurrent data structures
concurrent objects |
0.2 | 1 | 2016 | Hoare-style specifications as correctness conditions for non-linearizable concurrent objects · OOPSLA 2016 |
Program verification
correctness conditions |
0.2 | 1 | 2016 | Hoare-style specifications as correctness conditions for non-linearizable concurrent objects · OOPSLA 2016 |
Concurrent programming › atomicity
linearizability |
0.2 | 1 | 2016 | Hoare-style specifications as correctness conditions for non-linearizable concurrent objects · OOPSLA 2016 |
Program verification
modular verification |
0.1 | 1 | 2021 | On algebraic abstractions for concurrent separation logics · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2021 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
separating relations · 1.0category theory · 1.0morphisms · 0.5morphism · 0.5morphism-specific simulation · 0.4hoare logic · 0.2
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | On algebraic abstractions for concurrent separation logicsabstractConcurrent separation logic is distinguished by transfer of state ownership upon parallel composition and framing. The algebraic structure that underpins ownership transfer is that of partial commutative monoids (PCMs). Extant research considers ownership transfer primarily from the logical perspective while comparatively less attention is drawn to the algebraic considerations. This paper provides an algebraic formalization of ownership transfer in concurrent separation logic by means of structure-preserving partial functions (i.e., morphisms) between PCMs, and an associated notion of separating relations. Morphisms of structures are a standard concept in algebra and category theory, but haven't seen ubiquitous use in separation logic before. Separating relations. are binary relations that generalize disjointness and characterize the inputs on which morphisms preserve structure. The two abstractions facilitate verification by enabling concise ways of writing specs, by providing abstract views of threads' states that are preserved under ownership transfer, and by enabling user-level construction of new PCMs out of existing ones. Frantisek Farka, Aleksandar Nanevski, Anindya Banerjee 0001, Germán Andrés Delbianco, Ignacio Fábregas |
Proc. ACM Program. Lang. | 4 |
| 2019 | Specifying concurrent programs in separation logic: morphisms and simulationsabstractIn addition to pre- and postconditions, program specifications in recent separation logics for concurrency have employed an algebraic structure of resources —a form of state transition systems—to describe the state-based program invariants that must be preserved, and to record the permissible atomic changes to program state. In this paper we introduce a novel notion of resource morphism , i.e. structure-preserving function on resources, and show how to effectively integrate it into separation logic, using an associated notion of morphism-specific simulation . We apply morphisms and simulations to programs verified under one resource, to compositionally adapt them to operate under another resource, thus facilitating proof reuse. Aleksandar Nanevski, Anindya Banerjee 0001, Germán Andrés Delbianco, Ignacio Fábregas |
Proc. ACM Program. Lang. | 3 |
| 2017 | Concurrent Data Structures Linked in TimeabstractArguments about correctness of a concurrent data structure are typically carried out by using the notion of linearizability and specifying the linearization points of the data structure's procedures. Such arguments are often cumbersome as the linearization points' position in time can be dynamic (depend on the interference, run-time values and events from the past, or even future), non-local (appear in procedures other than the one considered), and whose position in the execution trace may only be determined after the considered procedure has already terminated. In this paper we propose a new method, based on a separation-style logic, for reasoning about concurrent objects with such linearization points. We embrace the dynamic nature of linearization points, and encode it as part of the data structure's auxiliary state, so that it can be dynamically modified in place by auxiliary code, as needed when some appropriate run-time event occurs. We name the idea linking-in-time, because it reduces temporal reasoning to spatial reasoning. For example, modifying a temporal position of a linearization point can be modeled similarly to a pointer update in separation logic. Furthermore, the auxiliary state provides a convenient way to concisely express the properties essential for reasoning about clients of such concurrent objects. We illustrate the method by verifying (mechanically in Coq) an intricate optimal snapshot algorithm due to Jayanti, as well as some clients. Germán Andrés Delbianco, Ilya Sergey, Aleksandar Nanevski, Anindya Banerjee 0001 |
ECOOP | 1 |
| 2016 | Hoare-style specifications as correctness conditions for non-linearizable concurrent objectsabstractDesigning efficient concurrent objects often requires abandoning the standard specification technique of linearizability in favor of more relaxed correctness conditions. However, the variety of alternatives makes it difficult to choose which condition to employ, and how to compose them when using objects specified by different conditions. Ilya Sergey, Aleksandar Nanevski, Anindya Banerjee 0001, Germán Andrés Delbianco |
OOPSLA | 4 |
| 2014 | Communicating State Transition Systems for Fine-Grained Concurrent Resources
Aleksandar Nanevski, Ruy Ley-Wild, Ilya Sergey, Germán Andrés Delbianco |
ESOP | 4 |
| 2013 | Hoare-style reasoning with (algebraic) continuationsabstractContinuations are programming abstractions that allow for manipulating the "future" of a computation. Amongst their many applications, they enable implementing unstructured program flow through higher-order control operators such as callcc. In this paper we develop a Hoare-style logic for the verification of programs with higher-order control, in the presence of dynamic state. This is done by designing a dependent type theory with first class callcc and abort operators, where pre- and postconditions of programs are tracked through types. Our operators are algebraic in the sense of Plotkin and Power, and Jaskelioff, to reduce the annotation burden and enable verification by symbolic evaluation. We illustrate working with the logic by verifying a number of characteristic examples. Germán Andrés Delbianco, Aleksandar Nanevski |
ICFP | 1 |