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

Shree Prakash Rahul

dblp:18/3662 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2002
—ORCID · none

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 2

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 · 77% Programming languages and type systems · 23%
Network and information security
1 paper
Systems and software security · 100%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Systems and software security › security verification
proof-carrying code
0.012001
Oracle-based checking of untrusted software · POPL 2001
Program verification › mechanized verification
proof checking
0.012001
Oracle-based checking of untrusted software · POPL 2001

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

nondeterministic interpretation · 0.1higher-order logic programming · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2002 CIL: Intermediate Language and Tools for Analysis and Transformation of C Programs
George C. Necula, Scott McPeak, Shree Prakash Rahul, Westley Weimer
CC3
2001 Oracle-based checking of untrusted software
abstract
We present a variant of Proof-Carrying Code (PCC) in which the trusted inference rules are represented as a higherorder logic program, the proof checker is replaced by a nondeterministic higher-order logic interpreter and the proof by an oracle implemented as a stream of bits that resolve the nondeterministic interpretation choices. In this setting, Proof-Carrying Code allows the receiver of the code the luxury of using nondeterminism in constructing a simple yet powerful checking procedure. This oracle-based variant of PCC is able to adapt quite naturally to situations when the property being checked is simple or there is a fairly directed search procedure for it. As an example, we demonstrate that if PCC is used to verify type safety of assembly language programs compiled from Java source programs, the oracles that are needed are on the average just 12% of the size of the code, which represents an improvement of a factor of 30 over previous syntactic representations of PCC proofs. ...
George C. Necula, Shree Prakash Rahul
POPL2