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

V. R. Sathiyanarayana

dblp:359/4808 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
0as first author
3since 2021 · last 2026
0009-0006-5187-5415ORCID · corroborated

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 3 · 3 since 2021

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
2 papers
Automated reasoning and model checking · 70% Distributed computing theory · 17% Computational complexity · 13%
Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
2 papers
Program verification · 82% Programming languages and type systems · 18%
Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
1 paper
Distributed systems · 100%

Topics — the 12 heaviest of 12, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Program verification › termination analysis
probabilistic termination
1.622025
Sound and Complete Proof Rules for Probabilistic Termination · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2025
Positive Almost-Sure Termination: Complexity and Proof Rules · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2024
Program verification › program logic
proof rules
1.622025
Sound and Complete Proof Rules for Probabilistic Termination · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2025
Positive Almost-Sure Termination: Complexity and Proof Rules · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2024
Automated reasoning and model checking › probabilistic verification
almost-sure termination
1.012026
Verifying Almost-Sure Termination for Randomized Distributed Algorithms · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2026
Automated reasoning and model checking › program verification
fair termination
1.012026
Verifying Almost-Sure Termination for Randomized Distributed Algorithms · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2026
Automated reasoning and model checking › probabilistic verification
probabilistic program verification
1.012026
Verifying Almost-Sure Termination for Randomized Distributed Algorithms · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2026
Automated reasoning and model checking
program verification
1.012026
Verifying Almost-Sure Termination for Randomized Distributed Algorithms · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2026
Distributed computing theory › distributed algorithms
randomized distributed algorithms
1.012026
Verifying Almost-Sure Termination for Randomized Distributed Algorithms · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2026
Programming languages and type systems › probabilistic programs
almost-sure termination
0.912025
Sound and Complete Proof Rules for Probabilistic Termination · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2025
Program verification
ranking supermartingales
0.812024
Positive Almost-Sure Termination: Complexity and Proof Rules · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2024
Computational complexity › computability theory
recursion-theoretic complexity
0.812024
Positive Almost-Sure Termination: Complexity and Proof Rules · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2024
Distributed systems › fault tolerance
byzantine fault tolerance
0.312026
Verifying Almost-Sure Termination for Randomized Distributed Algorithms · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2026
Distributed systems
consensus
0.312026
Verifying Almost-Sure Termination for Randomized Distributed Algorithms · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2026

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

proof rule · 2.0martingale-based reasoning · 2.0SMT solving · 2.0transfinite ordinal analysis · 1.5normal form transformation · 1.5variant functions · 0.9ranking supermartingales · 0.9
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2026 Verifying Almost-Sure Termination for Randomized Distributed Algorithms
abstract
We present a technique for the verification of liveness properties of randomized distributed algorithms. Our technique gives SMT-based proofs for many common consensus algorithms, both for crash faults and for Byzantine faults. It is based on a sound proof rule for fair almost-sure termination of distributed systems that combines martingale-based techniques for almost-sure termination with reasoning about weak fairness. Our proof rule is able to handle parametrized protocols where the state grows unboundedly and every variant function is unbounded. These protocols were out of scope for previous approaches, which either relied on bounded variant functions or on reductions to (non-probabilistic) fairness. We have implemented our proof rules on top of Caesar, a program verifier for probabilistic programs. We use our proof rule to give SMT-based proofs for termination properties of randomized asynchronous consensus protocols, including Ben-Or’s protocol and graded binary consensus, for both crash and Byzantine faults. These protocols have notoriously difficult proofs of termination but fall within the scope of our proof rule.
Constantin Enea, Rupak Majumdar, Harshit J. Motwani, V. R. Sathiyanarayana
Proc. ACM Program. Lang.4
2025 Sound and Complete Proof Rules for Probabilistic Termination
abstract
Deciding termination is a fundamental problem in the analysis of probabilistic imperative programs. We consider the qualitative and quantitative probabilistic termination problems for an imperative programming model with discrete probabilistic choice and demonic bounded nondeterminism. The qualitative question asks if the program terminates almost-surely, no matter how nondeterminism is resolved. The quantitative question asks for a bound on the probability of termination. Despite a long and rich literature on the topic, no sound and relatively complete proof systems were known for these problems. In this paper, we provide sound and relatively complete proof rules for proving qualitative and quantitative termination in the assertion language of arithmetic. Our rules use variant functions as measures of distances to termination as well as supermartingales that restrain the growth of these variants almost-surely. Our completeness result shows how to construct suitable supermartingale and variant functions from an almost-surely terminating program. We also show that proofs of termination in many existing proof systems can be transformed to proofs in our system, pointing to its applicability in practice. As an application of our proof rule, we show an explicit proof of almost-sure termination for the two-dimensional random walker.
Rupak Majumdar, V. R. Sathiyanarayana
Proc. ACM Program. Lang.2
2024 Positive Almost-Sure Termination: Complexity and Proof Rules
abstract
We study the recursion-theoretic complexity of Positive Almost-Sure Termination (PAST) in an imperative programming language with rational variables, bounded nondeterministic choice, and discrete probabilistic choice. A program terminates positive almost-surely if, for every scheduler, the program terminates almost-surely and the expected runtime to termination is finite. We show that PAST for our language is complete for the (lightface) co-analytic sets ( Π 1 1 -complete). This is in contrast to the related notions of Almost-Sure Termination (AST) and Bounded Termination (BAST), both of which are arithmetical ( Π 2 0 - and Σ 2 0 -complete respectively). Our upper bound implies an effective procedure to reduce reasoning about probabilistic termination to non-probabilistic fair termination in a model with bounded nondeterminism, and to simple program termination in models with unbounded nondeterminism. Our lower bound shows the opposite: for every program with unbounded nondeterministic choice, there is an effectively computable probabilistic program with bounded choice such that the original program is terminating if, and only if, the transformed program is PAST. We show that every program has an effectively computable normal form, in which each probabilistic choice either continues or terminates execution immediately, each with probability 1 / 2 . For normal form programs, we provide a sound and complete proof rule for PAST. Our proof rule uses transfinite ordinals. We show that reasoning about PAST requires transfinite ordinals up to ω 1 CK ; thus, existing techniques for probabilistic termination based on ranking supermartingales that map program states to reals do not suffice to reason about PAST.
Rupak Majumdar, V. R. Sathiyanarayana
Proc. ACM Program. Lang.2