Demo Data from SIGIR 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Joakim Öhman
dblp:211/9226
· DBLP profile ↗
2ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2022
0000-0002-9284-3886ORCID · corroborated
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 2 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021
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 |
Concurrent programming · 100% | |
| Theoretical computer science
1 paper |
Logic in computer science · 100% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Concurrent programming › atomicity
linearizability |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Visibility reasoning for concurrent snapshot algorithms · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2022 |
Logic in computer science › algebraic logic
canonicity |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | Decidability of conversion for type theory in type theory · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2018 |
Logic in computer science
type theory |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | Decidability of conversion for type theory in type theory · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2018 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
modular proof · 0.6linearization points · 0.6kripke logical relation · 0.3inductive-recursive definitions · 0.3
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | Visibility reasoning for concurrent snapshot algorithmsabstractVisibility relations have been proposed by Henzinger et al. as an abstraction for proving linearizability of concurrent algorithms that obtains modular and reusable proofs. This is in contrast to the customary approach based on exhibiting the algorithm's linearization points. In this paper we apply visibility relations to develop modular proofs for three elegant concurrent snapshot algorithms of Jayanti. The proofs are divided by signatures into components of increasing level of abstraction; the components at higher abstraction levels are shared, i.e., they apply to all three algorithms simultaneously. Importantly, the interface properties mathematically capture Jayanti's original intuitions that have previously been given only informally. Joakim Öhman, Aleksandar Nanevski |
Proc. ACM Program. Lang. | 1 |
| 2018 | Decidability of conversion for type theory in type theoryabstractType theory should be able to handle its own meta-theory, both to justify its foundational claims and to obtain a verified implementation. At the core of a type checker for intensional type theory lies an algorithm to check equality of types, or in other words, to check whether two types are convertible. We have formalized in Agda a practical conversion checking algorithm for a dependent type theory with one universe à la Russell, natural numbers, and η-equality for Π types. We prove the algorithm correct via a Kripke logical relation parameterized by a suitable notion of equivalence of terms. We then instantiate the parameterized fundamental lemma twice: once to obtain canonicity and injectivity of type formers, and once again to prove the completeness of the algorithm. Our proof relies on inductive-recursive definitions, but not on the uniqueness of identity proofs. Thus, it is valid in variants of intensional Martin-Löf Type Theory as long as they support induction-recursion, for instance, Extensional, Observational, or Homotopy Type Theory. Andreas Abel 0001, Joakim Öhman, Andrea Vezzosi |
Proc. ACM Program. Lang. | 2 |