EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Maryam Helmi
dblp:24/9365
· DBLP profile ↗
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
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Computational complexity
space complexity |
0.4 | 3 | 2015 | 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 |
0.3 | 2 | 2014 | 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 |
0.2 | 1 | 2015 | Test-and-Set in Optimal Space · STOC 2015 |
Distributed computing theory › shared memory
shared-memory synchronization |
0.2 | 1 | 2015 | Test-and-Set in Optimal Space · STOC 2015 |
Distributed computing theory › synchronization primitives
test-and-set |
0.2 | 1 | 2015 | Test-and-Set in Optimal Space · STOC 2015 |
Distributed computing theory › shared memory consistency
linearizability |
0.1 | 1 | 2012 | Strongly linearizable implementations: possibilities and impossibilities · PODC 2012 |
Distributed computing theory › shared memory consistency › linearizability
strong linearizability |
0.1 | 1 | 2012 | Strongly linearizable implementations: possibilities and impossibilities · PODC 2012 |
Distributed systems
fault tolerance |
0.1 | 1 | 2014 | The Space Complexity of Long-Lived and One-Shot Timestamp Implementations · J. ACM 2014 |
Distributed systems › concurrency control
wait-free algorithms |
0.1 | 1 | 2014 | The Space Complexity of Long-Lived and One-Shot Timestamp Implementations · J. ACM 2014 |
Algorithms and data structures
randomized algorithms |
0.0 | 1 | 2012 | Strongly linearizable implementations: possibilities and impossibilities · PODC 2012 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
lower bound proof · 0.4
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2015 | Test-and-Set in Optimal SpaceabstractThe 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 |
STOC | 2 |
| 2014 | Space Bounds for Adaptive Renaming
Maryam Helmi, Lisa Higham, Philipp Woelfel |
DISC | 1 |
| 2014 | The Space Complexity of Long-Lived and One-Shot Timestamp ImplementationsabstractThis 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. ACM | 1 |
| 2013 | An O(sqrt n) Space Bound for Obstruction-Free Leader Election
George Giakkoupis, Maryam Helmi, Lisa Higham, Philipp Woelfel |
DISC | 2 |
| 2012 | Strongly linearizable implementations: possibilities and impossibilitiesabstractHerlihy 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 |
PODC | 1 |
| 2011 | The space complexity of long-lived and one-shot timestamp implementationsabstractThis 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 |
PODC | 1 |