Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
William E. Aitken
dblp:34/3483
· DBLP profile ↗
2ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 1999
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 first-authorTheory of computation · 1
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
1 paper |
Logic in computer science · 100% |
Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Logic in computer science
proof theory |
0.0 | 1 | 1990 | The Semantics of Reflected Proof · LICS 1990 |
Logic in computer science › proof theory
reflection |
0.0 | 1 | 1990 | The Semantics of Reflected Proof · LICS 1990 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
metalanguage-object language mapping · 0.0fixed point construction · 0.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1999 | Metalogical Frameworks II: Developing a Reflected Decision Procedure
William E. Aitken, Robert L. Constable, Judith L. Underwood |
J. Autom. Reason. | 1 |
| 1990 | The Semantics of Reflected ProofabstractThe authors lay the foundations for reasoning about proofs whose steps include both invocations of programs to build subproofs (tactics) and references to representations of proofs themselves (reflected proofs). The main result is the definition of a single type of proof which can mention itself, using a novel technique which finds a fixed point of a mapping between metalanguage and object language. This single type contrasts with hierarchies of types used in other approaches to accomplish the same classification. It is shown that these proofs are valid, and that every proof can be reduced to a proof involving only primitive inference rules. The extension of the results to proofs from which programs (such as tactics) can be derive and to proofs that can refer to a library of definitions and previously proven theorems is shown. It is believed that the mechanism of reflection is fundamental in building proof development systems, and its power is illustrated with applications to automating reasoning and describing modes of computation.> Stuart F. Allen, Robert L. Constable, Douglas J. Howe, William E. Aitken |
LICS | 4 |