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

Ranadeep Biswas

dblp:244/8272 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
4ranked-venue papers
3as first author
1since 2021 · last 2021
—ORCID · none

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 4 · 3 first-author · 1 since 2021Theory 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.

Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
2 papers
Transaction processing and concurrency control · 100%
Theoretical computer science
2 papers
Computational complexity · 100%
Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Software testing · 100%
Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
1 paper
Storage systems · 100%

Topics — the 6 heaviest of 7, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Transaction processing and concurrency control
isolation levels
0.922021
MonkeyDB: effectively testing correctness under weak isolation levels · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2021
On the complexity of checking transactional consistency · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2019
Software testing
test generation
0.512021
MonkeyDB: effectively testing correctness under weak isolation levels · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2021
Transaction processing and concurrency control › isolation levels
snapshot isolation
0.412019
On the complexity of checking transactional consistency · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2019
Transaction processing and concurrency control › consistency
transactional consistency
0.412019
On the complexity of checking transactional consistency · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2019
Computational complexity › constraint satisfaction
consistency checking
0.412019
On the Complexity of Checking Consistency for Replicated Data Types · CAV (2) 2019
Storage systems
key-value storage
0.112021
MonkeyDB: effectively testing correctness under weak isolation levels · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2021

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

random value selection · 1.5logical specification of isolation levels · 1.5polynomial-time algorithm · 0.8fixed-parameter algorithms · 0.8
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2021 MonkeyDB: effectively testing correctness under weak isolation levels
abstract
Modern applications, such as social networking systems and e-commerce platforms are centered around using large-scale storage systems for storing and retrieving data. In the presence of concurrent accesses, these storage systems trade off isolation for performance. The weaker the isolation level, the more behaviors a storage system is allowed to exhibit and it is up to the developer to ensure that their application can tolerate those behaviors. However, these weak behaviors only occur rarely in practice and outside the control of the application, making it difficult for developers to test the robustness of their code against weak isolation levels. This paper presents MonkeyDB, a mock storage system for testing storage-backed applications. MonkeyDB supports a key-value interface as well as SQL queries under multiple isolation levels. It uses a logical specification of the isolation level to compute, on a read operation, the set of all possible return values. MonkeyDB then returns a value randomly from this set. We show that MonkeyDB provides good coverage of weak behaviors, which is complete in the limit. We test a variety of applications for assertions that fail only under weak isolation. MonkeyDB is able to break each of those assertions in a small number of attempts.
Ranadeep Biswas, Diptanshu Kakwani, Jyothi Vedurada, Constantin Enea, Akash Lal
Proc. ACM Program. Lang.1
2020 Boosting Sequential Consistency Checking Using Saturation
Rachid Zennou, Mohamed Faouzi Atig, Ranadeep Biswas, Ahmed Bouajjani, Constantin Enea, Mohammed Erradi
ATVA3
2019 On the Complexity of Checking Consistency for Replicated Data Types
abstract
Recent distributed systems have introduced variations of familiar abstract data types (ADTs) like counters, registers, flags, and sets, that provide high availability and partition tolerance. These conflict-free replicated data types (CRDTs) utilize mechanisms to resolve the effects of concurrent updates to replicated data. Naturally these objects weaken their consistency guarantees to achieve availability and partition-tolerance, and various notions of weak consistency capture those guarantees. In this work we study the tractability of CRDT-consistency checking. To capture guarantees precisely, and facilitate symbolic reasoning, we propose novel logical characterizations. By developing novel reductions from propositional satisfiability problems, and novel consistency-checking algorithms, we discover both positive and negative results. In particular, we show intractability for replicated flags, sets, counters, and registers, yet tractability for replicated growable arrays. Furthermore, we demonstrate that tractability can be redeemed for registers when each value is written at most once, for counters when the number of replicas is fixed, and for sets and flags when the number of replicas and variables is fixed.
Ranadeep Biswas, Michael Emmi, Constantin Enea
CAV (2)1
2019 On the complexity of checking transactional consistency
abstract
Transactions simplify concurrent programming by enabling computations on shared data that are isolated from other concurrent computations and are resilient to failures. Modern databases provide different consistency models for transactions corresponding to different tradeoffs between consistency and availability. In this work, we investigate the problem of checking whether a given execution of a transactional database adheres to some consistency model. We show that consistency models like read committed, read atomic, and causal consistency are polynomial-time checkable while prefix consistency and snapshot isolation are NP-complete in general. These results complement a previous NP-completeness result concerning serializability. Moreover, in the context of NP-complete consistency models, we devise algorithms that are polynomial time assuming that certain parameters in the input executions, e.g., the number of sessions, are fixed. We evaluate the scalability of these algorithms in the context of several production databases.
Ranadeep Biswas, Constantin Enea
Proc. ACM Program. Lang.1