EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Stéphane Gimenez
dblp:23/9731
· DBLP profile ↗
2ranked-venue papers
2as first author
0since 2021 · last 2016
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 first-authorTheory of computation · 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.
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper |
Programming languages and type systems · 100% | |
| Theoretical computer science
1 paper |
Computational complexity · 62% Logic in computer science · 38% |
Topics — the 5 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Programming languages and type systems › rewriting systems
interaction nets |
0.2 | 1 | 2016 | The complexity of interaction · POPL 2016 |
Programming languages and type systems
language semantics |
0.2 | 1 | 2016 | The complexity of interaction · POPL 2016 |
Computational complexity
implicit computational complexity |
0.2 | 1 | 2016 | The complexity of interaction · POPL 2016 |
Logic in computer science › proof theory › substructural logic
linear logic |
0.1 | 1 | 2016 | The complexity of interaction · POPL 2016 |
Logic in computer science › proof theory › substructural logic › linear logic
proof nets |
0.1 | 1 | 2016 | The complexity of interaction · POPL 2016 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
sized types · 0.5scheduled types · 0.5complexity potentials · 0.5
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | The complexity of interactionabstractIn this paper, we analyze the complexity of functional programs written in the interaction-net computation model, an asynchronous, parallel and confluent model that generalizes linear-logic proof nets. Employing user-defined sized and scheduled types, we certify concrete time, space and space-time complexity bounds for both sequential and parallel reductions of interaction-net programs by suitably assigning complexity potentials to typed nodes. The relevance of this approach is illustrated on archetypal programming examples. The provided analysis is precise, compositional and is, in theory, not restricted to particular complexity classes. Stéphane Gimenez, Georg Moser |
POPL | 1 |
| 2013 | The Structure of InteractionabstractInteraction nets form a local and strongly confluent model of computation that is per se parallel. We introduce a Curry–Howard correspondence between well-formed interaction nets and a deep-inference deduction system based on linear logic. In particular, linear logic itself is easily expressed in the system and its computational aspects materialise though the correspondence. The system of interaction nets obtained is a typed variant of already well-known sharing graphs. Due to a strong confluence property, strong normalisation for this system follows from weak normalisation. The latter is obtained via an adaptation of Girard's reducibility method. The approach is modular, readily gives rise to generalisations (e.g. second order, known as polymorphism to the programmer) and could therefore be extended to various systems of interaction nets. Stéphane Gimenez, Georg Moser |
CSL | 1 |