Maryam Helmi

dblp:24/9365 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
6ranked-venue papers
4as first author
0since 2021 · last 2015
—ORCID · none

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

Systems, architecture and hardware · 2 · 2 first-authorTheory of computation · 1Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 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
4 papers
Distributed computing theory · 72% Computational complexity · 26% Algorithms and data structures · 2%
Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
1 paper
Distributed systems · 100%

Topics — the 10 heaviest of 10, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Computational complexity
space complexity
0.432015
Test-and-Set in Optimal Space · STOC 2015
The Space Complexity of Long-Lived and One-Shot Timestamp Implementations · J. ACM 2014
The space complexity of long-lived and one-shot timestamp implementations · PODC 2011
Distributed computing theory
shared memory
0.322014
The Space Complexity of Long-Lived and One-Shot Timestamp Implementations · J. ACM 2014
The space complexity of long-lived and one-shot timestamp implementations · PODC 2011
Distributed computing theory › shared memory
register complexity
0.212015
Test-and-Set in Optimal Space · STOC 2015
Distributed computing theory › shared memory
shared-memory synchronization
0.212015
Test-and-Set in Optimal Space · STOC 2015
Distributed computing theory › synchronization primitives
test-and-set
0.212015
Test-and-Set in Optimal Space · STOC 2015
Distributed computing theory › shared memory consistency
linearizability
0.112012
Strongly linearizable implementations: possibilities and impossibilities · PODC 2012
Distributed computing theory › shared memory consistency › linearizability
strong linearizability
0.112012
Strongly linearizable implementations: possibilities and impossibilities · PODC 2012
Distributed systems
fault tolerance
0.112014
The Space Complexity of Long-Lived and One-Shot Timestamp Implementations · J. ACM 2014
Distributed systems › concurrency control
wait-free algorithms
0.112014
The Space Complexity of Long-Lived and One-Shot Timestamp Implementations · J. ACM 2014
Algorithms and data structures
randomized algorithms
0.012012
Strongly linearizable implementations: possibilities and impossibilities · PODC 2012

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

lower bound proof · 0.4
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2015 Test-and-Set in Optimal Space
abstract
The test-and-set object is a fundamental synchronization primitive for shared memory systems. This paper addresses the number of registers (supporting atomic reads and writes) required to implement a one-shot test-and-set object in the standard asynchronous shared memory model with n processes. The best lower bound is log n - 1 [12,21] for obstruction-free and deadlock-free implementations, and recently a deterministic obstruction-free implementation using O(√ n) registers was presented [11].
George Giakkoupis, Maryam Helmi, Lisa Higham, Philipp Woelfel
STOC2
2014 Space Bounds for Adaptive Renaming
Maryam Helmi, Lisa Higham, Philipp Woelfel
DISC1
2014 The Space Complexity of Long-Lived and One-Shot Timestamp Implementations
abstract
This article is concerned with the problem of implementing an unbounded timestamp object from multiwriter atomic registers, in an asynchronous distributed system of n processes with distinct identifiers where timestamps are taken from an arbitrary universe. Ellen et al. [2008] showed that √ n /2 − O (1) registers are required for any obstruction-free implementation of long-lived timestamp systems from atomic registers (meaning processes can repeatedly get timestamps). We improve this existing lower bound in two ways. First we establish a lower bound of n /6 − 1 registers for the obstruction-free long-lived timestamp problem. Previous such linear lower bounds were only known for constrained versions of the timestamp problem. This bound is asymptotically tight; Ellen et al. [2008] constructed a wait-free algorithm that uses n − 1 registers. Second we show that √2 n − log n − O (1) registers are required for any obstruction-free implementation of one-shot timestamp systems (meaning each process can get a timestamp at most once). We show that this bound is also asymptotically tight by providing a wait-free one-shot timestamp system that uses at most ⌈2√ n ⌉ registers, thus establishing a space complexity gap between one-shot and long-lived timestamp systems.
Maryam Helmi, Lisa Higham, Eduardo Pacheco, Philipp Woelfel
J. ACM1
2013 An O(sqrt n) Space Bound for Obstruction-Free Leader Election
George Giakkoupis, Maryam Helmi, Lisa Higham, Philipp Woelfel
DISC2
2012 Strongly linearizable implementations: possibilities and impossibilities
abstract
Herlihy and Wing [11] established that the set of possible outcomes of a shared memory distributed algorithm remains unchanged when atomic objects are replaced by their linearizable implementations. Since then, linearizability has been the correctness condition of choice for distributed algorithm designers. In 2011, however, Golab, Higham and Woelfel [9] showed that, if an algorithm employs randomization, then the probability distribution over the set of possible outcomes can differ between the atomic and implemented versions. They also proved that a stronger condition, called strong linearizability, is necessary and sufficient to guarantee the same probability distributions for these two cases when the randomized algorithm is under the control of an adaptive adversary. Therefore, we are motivated to construct strongly linearizable implementations of common distributed objects whenever possible. In this paper we prove
Maryam Helmi, Lisa Higham, Philipp Woelfel
PODC1
2011 The space complexity of long-lived and one-shot timestamp implementations
abstract
This paper is concerned with the problem of implementing an unbounded timestamp object from multi-writer atomic registers, in an asynchronous distributed system of n processors with distinct identifiers where timestamps are taken from an arbitrary universe. Ellen, Fatourou and Ruppert [7] showed that √n/2-O(1) registers are required for any obstruction-free implementation of long-lived timestamp systems from atomic registers (meaning processors can repeatedly get timestamps).
Maryam Helmi, Lisa Higham, Eduardo Pacheco, Philipp Woelfel
PODC1