Gérard Cécé

dblp:90/3485 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
6ranked-venue papers
6as first author
0since 2021 · last 2017
—ORCID · none

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

Theory of computation · 5 · 5 first-authorSoftware engineering, systems software and programming languages · 2 · 2 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.

Theoretical computer science
5 papers
Logic in computer science · 46% Algorithms and data structures · 23% Computational complexity · 23%
Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
3 papers
Program verification · 100%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Algorithms and data structures › randomized algorithms › sampling › markov chain monte carlo
simulation algorithms
0.312017
Foundation for a series of efficient simulation algorithms · LICS 2017
Logic in computer science › concurrency theory
simulation preorder
0.312017
Foundation for a series of efficient simulation algorithms · LICS 2017
Computational complexity
time-space tradeoffs
0.312017
Foundation for a series of efficient simulation algorithms · LICS 2017
Logic in computer science
transition systems
0.312017
Foundation for a series of efficient simulation algorithms · LICS 2017
Program verification
concurrent program verification
0.112005
Verification of programs with half-duplex communication · Inf. Comput. 2005
Automata and formal languages › infinite-state systems › channel systems
communicating finite state machines
0.112005
Verification of programs with half-duplex communication · Inf. Comput. 2005
Program verification
verification decidability
0.011997
Programs with Quasi-Stable Channels are Effectively Recognizable (Extended Abstract) · CAV 1997
Automata and formal languages › infinite-state systems
channel systems
0.011997
Programs with Quasi-Stable Channels are Effectively Recognizable (Extended Abstract) · CAV 1997
Program verification
unreliable channels
0.011996
Unreliable Channels are Easier to Verify Than Perfect Channels · Inf. Comput. 1996
Automata and formal languages › infinite-state systems › channel systems
lossy channel systems
0.011996
Unreliable Channels are Easier to Verify Than Perfect Channels · Inf. Comput. 1996
Automata and formal languages › infinite-state systems › channel systems
FIFO channel systems
0.011994
Duplication, Insertion and Lossiness Errors in Unreliable Communication Channels · SIGSOFT FSE 1994
Internet architecture and protocols
protocol specification
0.011994
Duplication, Insertion and Lossiness Errors in Unreliable Communication Channels · SIGSOFT FSE 1994

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

partition refinement · 0.3maximal transitions · 0.3model checking · 0.2reachability analysis · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2017 Foundation for a series of efficient simulation algorithms
abstract
Compute the coarsest simulation preorder included in an initial preorder is used to reduce the resources needed to analyze a given transition system. This technique is applied on many models like Kripke structures, labeled graphs, labeled transition systems or even word and tree automata. Let (Q,→) be a given transition system and ℛinitbe an initial preorder over Q. Until now, algorithms to compute ℛsim, the coarsest simulation included in ℛinit, are either memory efficient or time efficient but not both. In this paper we propose the foundation for a series of efficient simulation algorithms with the introduction of the notion of maximal transitions and the notion of stability of a preorder with respect to a coarser one. As an illustration we solve an open problem by providing the first algorithm with the best published time complexity, O(|Psim|.|→|), and a bit space complexity in O(|Psim|2.log(|Psim|)+|Q|.log(|Q|)), with Psimthe partition induced by ℛsim.
Gérard Cécé
LICS1
2011 Simulations over Two-Dimensional On-Line Tessellation Automata
Gérard Cécé, Alain Giorgetti
Developments in Language Theory1
2005 Verification of programs with half-duplex communication
Gérard Cécé, Alain Finkel
Inf. Comput.1
1997 Programs with Quasi-Stable Channels are Effectively Recognizable (Extended Abstract)
Gérard Cécé, Alain Finkel
CAV1
1996 Unreliable Channels are Easier to Verify Than Perfect Channels
Gérard Cécé, Alain Finkel, S. Purushothaman Iyer
Inf. Comput.1
1994 Duplication, Insertion and Lossiness Errors in Unreliable Communication Channels
abstract
We consider the problem of verifying correctness of finite state machines that communicate with each other over unbounded FIFO channels that are unreliable. Various problems regarding verification of FIFO channels that can lose messages have been considered by Finkel [10], and by Abdulla and Johnson [1, 2]. We consider, in this paper, other possible unreliable behaviors of communication channels, viz. (a) duplication and (b) insertion errors. Furthermore, we also consider various combinations of duplication, insertion and lossiness errors.Finite state machines that communicate over unbounded FIFO buffers is a model of computation that forms the backbone of ISO standard protocol specification languages Estelle and SDL. While an assumption of a perfect communication medium is reasonable at the higher levels of the OSI protocol stack, the lower levels have to deal with an unreliable communication medium; hence our motivation for the present work.The verification problems that are of interest are reachability, unboundedness, deadlock, and model-checking against CTL. All of these problems are undecidable for machines communicating over reliable unbounded FIFO channels. So, it is perhaps surprising that some of these problems become decidable when unreliable channels are modeled. The contributions of this paper are: (a) An investigation of solutions to these problems for machines with insertion errors, duplication errors, or a combination of duplication, insertion and lossiness errors, and (b) A comparison of the relative expressive power of the various errors.
Gérard Cécé, Alain Finkel, S. Purushothaman Iyer
SIGSOFT FSE1