Demo Data from SIGIR 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Alan F. Babich
dblp:13/6052
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 1979
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 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.
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper |
Program verification · 77% Concurrent programming · 23% |
Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Program verification
parallel program correctness |
0.0 | 1 | 1979 | Proving Total Correctness of Parallel Programs · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1979 |
Program verification › correctness proof
total correctness |
0.0 | 1 | 1979 | Proving Total Correctness of Parallel Programs · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1979 |
Concurrent programming
parallel programming models |
0.0 | 1 | 1979 | Proving Total Correctness of Parallel Programs · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1979 |
Concurrent programming
synchronization |
0.0 | 1 | 1979 | Proving Total Correctness of Parallel Programs · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1979 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
variant functions · 0.0partial correctness proof · 0.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1979 | Proving Total Correctness of Parallel ProgramsabstractAn approach to proving paralel programs correct is presented. The steps are 1) model the paralel program, 2) prove partial correctness (proper synchronization), and 3) prove the absence of deadlock, livelock, and infinite loops. The parallel program model is based on KeUler's model. The main contributions of the paper are techniques for proving the absence of deadlock and livelock. A connection is made between Keler's work and Dijkstra's work with serial non-deterministic programs. It is shown how a variant function may be used to prove finite termination, even if the variant function is not strictly decreasing, and how finite termination can be used to prove the absence of livelock. Handling of the finite delay assumption is also discussed. The illustrative examples indude one which occurred in a commercial environment and a classic synchronization problem solved without the aid of special synchronization primitives. Alan F. Babich |
IEEE Trans. Software Eng. | 1 |