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

Roy Mennicke

dblp:98/8315 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
6ranked-venue papers
2as first author
0since 2021 · last 2017
—ORCID · none

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

Theory of computation · 4 · 2 first-authorDatabases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 2Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 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
Automated reasoning and model checking · 44% Computational complexity · 44% Automata and formal languages · 13%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Computational complexity › complexity of reasoning
model checking complexity
0.212013
The Complexity of Model Checking Multi-stack Systems · LICS 2013
Automated reasoning and model checking › model checking
temporal logic model checking
0.212013
The Complexity of Model Checking Multi-stack Systems · LICS 2013
Automata and formal languages
pushdown automata
0.012013
The Complexity of Model Checking Multi-stack Systems · LICS 2013

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

phase-bounded executions · 0.2monadic second-order logic · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2017 The Complexity of Model Checking Multi-Stack Systems
Benedikt Bollig, Dietrich Kuske, Roy Mennicke
Theory Comput. Syst.3
2014 Model Checking Concurrent Recursive Programs Using Temporal Logics
Roy Mennicke
MFCS (1)1
2013 The Complexity of Model Checking Multi-stack Systems
abstract
We consider the linear-time model checking problem for boolean concurrent programs with recursive procedure calls. While sequential recursive programs are usually modeled as pushdown automata, concurrent recursive programs involve several processes and can be naturally abstracted as pushdown automata with multiple stacks. Their behavior can be understood as words with multiple nesting relations, each relation connecting a procedure call with its corresponding return. To reason about multiply nested words, we consider the class of all temporal logics as defined in the book by Gabbay, Hodkinson, and Reynolds (1994). The unifying feature of these temporal logics is that their modalities are defined in monadic second-order (MSO) logic. In particular, this captures numerous temporal logics over concurrent and/or recursive programs that have been defined so far. Since the general model checking problem is undecidable, we restrict attention to phase bounded executions as proposed by La Torre, Madhusudan, and Parlato (LICS 2007). While the MSO model checking problem in this case is non-elementary, our main result states that the model checking (and satisfiability) problem for all MSO-definable temporal logics is decidable in elementary time. More precisely, it is solvable in (n + 2)-EXPTIME where n is the maximal level of the MSO modalities in the monadic quantifier alternation hierarchy. We complement this result and provide, for each level n, a temporal logic whose model checking problem is n-EXPSPACE-hard.
Benedikt Bollig, Dietrich Kuske, Roy Mennicke
LICS3
2013 XML tree structure compression using RePair
Markus Lohrey, Sebastian Maneth, Roy Mennicke
Inf. Syst.3
2012 Propositional Dynamic Logic with Converse and Repeat for Message-Passing Systems
Roy Mennicke
CONCUR1
2011 Tree Structure Compression with RePair
abstract
Larsson and Moffat's RePair algorithm is generalized from strings to trees. The new algorithm (TreeRePair) produces straight-line linear context-free tree (SLT) grammars which are smaller than those produced by previous grammar-based compressors such as BPLEX. Experiments show that a Huffman-based coding of the resulting grammars gives compression ratios comparable to the best known XML file compressors. Moreover, SLT grammars can be used as efficient memory representation of trees. Our investigations show that tree traversals over TreeRePair grammars are 14 times slower than over pointer structures and 5 times slower than over succinct trees, while memory consumption is only 1/43 and 1/6, respectively.
Markus Lohrey, Sebastian Maneth, Roy Mennicke
DCC3