Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Peter A. Jonsson
dblp:63/4444
· DBLP profile ↗
4ranked-venue papers
2as first author
0since 2021 · last 2016
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 3 · 2 first-authorSystems, architecture and hardware · 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.
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
2 papers |
Program analysis · 44% Programming languages and type systems · 37% Compilers and program optimization · 15% | |
| Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
1 paper |
Performance modeling and evaluation · 50% Parallel and multicore computing · 50% | |
| Computer graphics and multimedia
1 paper |
Visualization and visual analytics · 100% |
Topics — the 7 heaviest of 9, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Program analysis › dynamic language analysis
javascript analysis |
0.1 | 1 | 2012 | Remedying the eval that men do · ISSTA 2012 |
Programming languages and type systems
language design |
0.1 | 1 | 2012 | Remedying the eval that men do · ISSTA 2012 |
Program analysis
static analysis |
0.1 | 1 | 2012 | Remedying the eval that men do · ISSTA 2012 |
Programming languages and type systems › evaluation strategies
call-by-value |
0.1 | 1 | 2009 | Positive supercompilation for a higher order call-by-value language · POPL 2009 |
Compilers and program optimization
program transformation |
0.1 | 1 | 2009 | Positive supercompilation for a higher order call-by-value language · POPL 2009 |
Visualization and visual analytics › software visualization
performance visualization |
0.1 | 1 | 2016 | Grain graphs: OpenMP performance analysis made easy · PPoPP 2016 |
Program verification
termination analysis |
0.0 | 1 | 2009 | Positive supercompilation for a higher order call-by-value language · POPL 2009 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
grain graph visualization · 0.5static analysis · 0.1strictness analysis · 0.1
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | Grain graphs: OpenMP performance analysis made easyabstractAverage programmers struggle to solve performance problems in OpenMP programs with tasks and parallel for-loops. Existing performance analysis tools visualize OpenMP task performance from the runtime system's perspective where task execution is interleaved with other tasks in an unpredictable order. Problems with OpenMP parallel for-loops are similarly difficult to resolve since tools only visualize aggregate thread-level statistics such as load imbalance without zooming into a per-chunk granularity. The runtime system/threads oriented visualization provides poor support for understanding problems with task and chunk execution time, parallelism, and memory hierarchy utilization, forcing average programmers to rely on experts or use tedious trial-and-error tuning methods for performance. We present grain graphs, a new OpenMP performance analysis method that visualizes grains -- computation performed by a task or a parallel for-loop chunk instance -- and highlights problems such as low parallelism, work inflation and poor parallelization benefit at the grain level. We demonstrate that grain graphs can quickly reveal performance problems that are difficult to detect and characterize in fine detail using existing visualizations in standard OpenMP programs, simplifying OpenMP performance analysis. This enables average programmers to make portable optimizations for poor performing OpenMP programs, reducing pressure on experts and removing the need for tedious trial-and-error tuning. Ananya Muddukrishna, Peter A. Jonsson, Artur Podobas, Mats Brorsson |
PPoPP | 2 |
| 2012 | Remedying the eval that men doabstractA range of static analysis tools and techniques have been developed in recent years with the aim of helping JavaScript web application programmers produce code that is more robust, safe, and efficient. However, as shown in a previous large-scale study, many web applications use the JavaScript eval function to dynamically construct code from text strings in ways that obstruct existing static analyses. As a consequence, the analyses either fail to reason about the web applications or produce unsound or useless results. Simon Holm Jensen, Peter A. Jonsson, Anders Møller |
ISSTA | 2 |
| 2011 | Taming code explosion in supercompilationabstractSupercompilation algorithms can perform great optimizations but sometimes suffer from the problem of code explosion. This results in huge binaries which might hurt the performance on a modern processor. We present a supercompilation algorithm that is fast enough to speculatively supercompile expressions and discard the result if it turned out bad. This allows us to supercompile large parts of the imaginary and spectral parts of nofib in a matter of seconds while keeping the binary size increase below 5%. Peter A. Jonsson, Johan Nordlander |
PEPM | 1 |
| 2009 | Positive supercompilation for a higher order call-by-value languageabstractPrevious deforestation and supercompilation algorithms may introduce accidental termination when applied to call-by-value programs. This hides looping bugs from the programmer, and changes the behavior of a program depending on whether it is optimized or not. We present a supercompilation algorithm for a higher-order call-by-value language and we prove that the algorithm both terminates and preserves termination properties. This algorithm utilizes strictness information for deciding whether to substitute or not and compares favorably with previous call-by-name transformations. Peter A. Jonsson, Johan Nordlander |
POPL | 1 |