Mandayam K. Srivas

dblp:50/1962 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
26ranked-venue papers
1as first author
2since 2021 · last 2023
—ORCID · none

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

Theory of computation · 16 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 14 · 1 since 2021Systems, architecture and hardware · 3Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 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.

Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
3 papers
Electronic design automation · 83% Energy-efficient computing · 9% Processor architecture and microarchitecture · 8%
Theoretical computer science
3 papers
Automated reasoning and model checking · 100%
Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
4 papers
Program verification · 68% Programming languages and type systems · 32%

Topics — the 15 heaviest of 16, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Electronic design automation › hardware verification and test
formal verification
0.232014
Formal Hardware/Software Co-Verification of Embedded Power Controllers · IEEE Trans. Comput. Aided Des. Integr. Circuits Syst. 2014
Verifying Advanced Microarchitectures that Support Speculation and Exceptions · CAV 2000
Decomposing the Proof of Correctness of pipelined Microprocessors · CAV 1998
Electronic design automation
hardware verification and test
0.232014
Formal Hardware/Software Co-Verification of Embedded Power Controllers · IEEE Trans. Comput. Aided Des. Integr. Circuits Syst. 2014
Verifying Advanced Microarchitectures that Support Speculation and Exceptions · CAV 2000
Decomposing the Proof of Correctness of pipelined Microprocessors · CAV 1998
Automated reasoning and model checking › model checking
bounded model checking
0.212014
Formal Hardware/Software Co-Verification of Embedded Power Controllers · IEEE Trans. Comput. Aided Des. Integr. Circuits Syst. 2014
Energy-efficient computing
power management
0.112014
Formal Hardware/Software Co-Verification of Embedded Power Controllers · IEEE Trans. Comput. Aided Des. Integr. Circuits Syst. 2014
Automated reasoning and model checking
model checking
0.021996
PVS: Combining Specification, Proof Checking, and Model Checking · CAV 1996
An Integration of Model Checking with Automated Proof Checking · CAV 1995
Electronic design automation › hardware verification and test › processor verification
microarchitecture verification
0.012000
Verifying Advanced Microarchitectures that Support Speculation and Exceptions · CAV 2000
Processor architecture and microarchitecture › pipelining
pipelined processor
0.011998
Decomposing the Proof of Correctness of pipelined Microprocessors · CAV 1998
Electronic design automation › hardware verification and test
processor verification
0.011998
Decomposing the Proof of Correctness of pipelined Microprocessors · CAV 1998
Program verification
hardware verification
0.011996
Modular Verification of SRT Division · CAV 1996
Automated reasoning and model checking
theorem proving
0.011996
PVS: Combining Specification, Proof Checking, and Model Checking · CAV 1996
Program verification › mechanized verification
proof checking
0.011995
An Integration of Model Checking with Automated Proof Checking · CAV 1995
Programming languages and type systems › functional programming
applicative programming
0.011986
Function Definitions in Term Rewriting and Applicative Programming · Inf. Control. 1986
Programming languages and type systems
functional programming
0.011986
Function Definitions in Term Rewriting and Applicative Programming · Inf. Control. 1986
Programming languages and type systems
term rewriting
0.011986
Function Definitions in Term Rewriting and Applicative Programming · Inf. Control. 1986
Programming languages and type systems
abstract data types
0.011980
Expressiveness of the Operation Set of a Data Abstraction · POPL 1980

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

bounded model checking · 0.4hardware/software coverification · 0.2hardware-software co-verification · 0.2proof checking · 0.0model checking · 0.0formal verification · 0.0proof decomposition · 0.0modular verification · 0.0computability theory · 0.0algebraic specification · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2023 Automated Property Directed Self Composition
Akshatha Shenoy 0001, Sumanth Prabhu S, Kumar Madhukar, Ron Shemer, Mandayam K. Srivas
ATVA5
2021 A formal methods approach to predicting new features of the eukaryotic vesicle traffic system
Arnab Bhattacharyya 0001, Lakshmanan Kuppusamy, Somya Mani, Ankit Shukla 0003, Mandayam K. Srivas, Mukund Thattai
Acta Informatica6
2018 2LS: Memory Safety and Non-termination - (Competition Contribution)
Viktor Malík, Stefan Marticek, Peter Schrammel, Mandayam K. Srivas, Tomás Vojnar, Johanan Wahlang
TACAS (2)4
2017 Compositional Safety Refutation Techniques
Kumar Madhukar, Peter Schrammel, Mandayam K. Srivas
ATVA3
2017 Concurrent Program Verification with Invariant-Guided Underapproximation
Sumanth Prabhu S, Peter Schrammel, Mandayam K. Srivas, Michael Tautschnig, Anand Yeolekar
ATVA3
2015 Verifying synchronous reactive systems using lazy abstraction
Kumar Madhukar, Mandayam K. Srivas, Björn Wachter, Daniel Kroening, Ravindra Metta
DATE2
2015 Accelerating Invariant Generation
abstract
Acceleration is a technique for summarising loops by computing a closed-form representation of the loop behaviour. The closed form can be turned into an accelerator, which is a code snippet that skips over intermediate states of the loop to the end of the loop in a single step. Program analysers rely on invariant generation techniques to reason about loops. The state-of-the-art invariant generation techniques, in practice, often struggle to find concise loop invariants, and, instead, degrade into unrolling loops, which is ineffective for non-trivial programs. In this paper, we evaluate experimentally whether loop accelerators enable existing program analysis algorithm to discover loop invariants more reliably and more efficiently. This paper is the first comprehensive study on the synergies between acceleration and invariant generation. We report our experience with a collection of safe and unsafe programs drawn from the Software Verification Competition and the literature.
Kumar Madhukar, Björn Wachter, Daniel Kroening, Matt Lewis, Mandayam K. Srivas
FMCAD5
2014 Formal Hardware/Software Co-Verification of Embedded Power Controllers
abstract
This paper reports for the first time, the use of a hardware-software combined bounded model checking approach for hardware-software mixed implementations of power management logic. We report significant performance gains as compared to our earlier attempt of extracting a finite quotient transition system from the control software.
Pallab Dasgupta, Mandayam K. Srivas, Rajdeep Mukherjee
IEEE Trans. Comput. Aided Des. Integr. Circuits Syst.2
2003 Formal Verification of a Complex Pipelined Processor
Ravi Hosabettu, Ganesh Gopalakrishnan, Mandayam K. Srivas
Formal Methods Syst. Des.3
2000 Verifying Advanced Microarchitectures that Support Speculation and Exceptions
Ravi Hosabettu, Ganesh Gopalakrishnan, Mandayam K. Srivas
CAV3
1999 Modular Verification of SRT Division
Harald Ruess, Natarajan Shankar, Mandayam K. Srivas
Formal Methods Syst. Des.3
1998 Decomposing the Proof of Correctness of pipelined Microprocessors
Ravi Hosabettu, Mandayam K. Srivas, Ganesh Gopalakrishnan
CAV2
1997 Systematic Formal Verification of Interpreters
abstract
Formal methods have gained acceptance in the hardware field through a pragmatic approach that has succeeded in providing systematic, scalable, highly automated, and cost effective treatments for certain stereotypical problems of practical importance. By identifying stereotypical problems, the effort required to develop effective formal methods has been amortized over many applications. We suggest that formal methods can achieve similar industrial success in selected software applications by following the same principles. As an illustration, we examine approaches to the stereotypical problem of interpreter correctness in the presence of timing differences between the specification and implementation interpreters. In hardware, this corresponds to the problem of verifying microprogrammed, pipelined, or superscalar processors, but it has wider applications to any system-hardware or software-that can be considered as an interpreter.
David Cyrluk, John M. Rushby, Mandayam K. Srivas
ICFEM3
1996 PVS: Combining Specification, Proof Checking, and Model Checking
Sam Owre, S. Rajan, John M. Rushby, Natarajan Shankar, Mandayam K. Srivas
CAV5
1996 Modular Verification of SRT Division
Harald Ruess, Natarajan Shankar, Mandayam K. Srivas
CAV3
1996 Applying Formal Verification to the AAMP5 Microprocessor: A Case Study in the Industrial Use of Formal Methods
Mandayam K. Srivas, Steven P. Miller
Formal Methods Syst. Des.1
1995 An Integration of Model Checking with Automated Proof Checking
S. Rajan, Natarajan Shankar, Mandayam K. Srivas
CAV3
1995 Theorem proving: not an esoteric diversion, but the unifying framework for industrial verification
abstract
The effectiveness of hardware verification techniques has increased markedly in the past decade. As hardware verification techniques become increasingly powerful the idea of transitioning verification technology to industry can be taken seriously. Nevertheless, powerful decision procedures that can completely automate the verification of certain types of hardware, whether they are BDD based model-checkers or automatic microprocessor verification tools, cannot be adequate on their own for industrial hardware verification. However, a high-level, general-purpose theorem prover with specific capabilities can provide an overall framework in which these tools can be embedded and in which they can then be effectively used for industrial hardware verification.
David Cyrluk, Mandayam K. Srivas
ICCD2
1989 Negation with Logical Variables in Conditional Rewriting
Chilukuri K. Mohan, Mandayam K. Srivas
RTA2
1988 Implementing Functional Programs Using Mutable Abstract Data Types
Ganesh Gopalakrishnan, Mandayam K. Srivas
Inf. Process. Lett.2
1988 Computability and Implementability Issues in Abstract Data Types
Deepak Kapur, Mandayam K. Srivas
Sci. Comput. Program.2
1987 Reasoning in Systems of Equations and Inequations
Chilukuri K. Mohan, Mandayam K. Srivas, Deepak Kapur
FSTTCS2
1987 Automatic Inductive Theorem Proving Using Prolog
Jieh Hsiang, Mandayam K. Srivas
Theor. Comput. Sci.2
1986 Function Definitions in Term Rewriting and Applicative Programming
Chilukuri K. Mohan, Mandayam K. Srivas
Inf. Control.2
1985 PROLOG-Based Inductive Theorem Proving
Jieh Hsiang, Mandayam K. Srivas
FSTTCS2
1980 Expressiveness of the Operation Set of a Data Abstraction
abstract
In a strongly typed system supporting user defined data abstractions, the designer of a data abstraction ought to be careful in choosing the operations for the abstraction. If the operation set chosen is not expressive enough, it might be impossible or inconvenient to implement certain useful functions on the values of the data abstraction. In this paper, we characterize the expressive power of the operation set by defining two properties for data abstractions - expressive completeness and expressive richness. The operation set of an expressively complete data abstraction is adequate enough to implement all computable functions on its values. An expressively rich data abstraction is expressively complete with an operation set that is rich enough to conveniently extract from a value, all relevant information required to reconstruct the value from scratch. Practical applications of the properties of expressiveness introduced are also discussed.
Deepak Kapur, Mandayam K. Srivas
POPL2