Demo Data from SIGIR 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Pratap Singh
dblp:291/2955
· DBLP profile ↗
9ranked-venue papers
2as first author
9since 2021 · last 2026
0000-0002-7139-2334ORCID · verified
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Security and privacy · 4 · 1 first-author · 4 since 2021Systems, architecture and hardware · 2 · 2 since 2021Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 2 · 2 since 2021Computer networks · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1 · 1 since 2021Theory of computation · 1 · 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.
| Network and information security
4 papers |
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation · 78% Systems and software security · 22% | |
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
4 papers |
Programming languages and type systems · 67% Program verification · 24% Compilers and program optimization · 9% | |
| Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
2 papers |
Storage systems · 59% Distributed systems · 23% Cloud and datacenter computing · 18% |
Topics — the 13 heaviest of 17, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation › key management › public key infrastructure
certificate validation |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Towards Practical, End-to-End Formally Verified X.509 Certificate Validators with Verdict · USENIX Security Symposium 2025 |
Systems and software security
memory safety |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Vest: Verified, Secure, High-Performance Parsing and Serialization for Rust · USENIX Security Symposium 2025 |
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation › protocol verification
computational soundness |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Owl: Compositional Verification of Security Protocols via an Information-Flow Type System · SP 2023 |
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation
protocol verification |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Owl: Compositional Verification of Security Protocols via an Information-Flow Type System · SP 2023 |
Programming languages and type systems › type systems › security type systems
information-flow type systems |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Owl: Compositional Verification of Security Protocols via an Information-Flow Type System · SP 2023 |
Programming languages and type systems › type systems
refinement types |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Owl: Compositional Verification of Security Protocols via an Information-Flow Type System · SP 2023 |
Programming languages and type systems
type systems |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Owl: Compositional Verification of Security Protocols via an Information-Flow Type System · SP 2023 |
Distributed systems › distributed machine learning
distributed training |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Tectonic-Shift: A Composite Storage Fabric for Large-Scale ML Training · USENIX ATC 2023 |
Cloud and datacenter computing
datacenter storage |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Facebook's Tectonic Filesystem: Efficiency from Exascale · FAST 2021 |
Storage systems › file systems
distributed file system |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Facebook's Tectonic Filesystem: Efficiency from Exascale · FAST 2021 |
Storage systems › distributed storage
exascale storage system |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Facebook's Tectonic Filesystem: Efficiency from Exascale · FAST 2021 |
Program verification › system verification
end-to-end verification |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Towards Practical, End-to-End Formally Verified X.509 Certificate Validators with Verdict · USENIX Security Symposium 2025 |
Program verification › formal proof
mechanized proof |
0.2 | 1 | 2023 | Owl: Compositional Verification of Security Protocols via an Information-Flow Type System · SP 2023 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
refinement types · 1.3random oracle · 1.3information flow · 1.3metadata sharding · 0.5erasure coding · 0.5
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | Foundational Verification of Running-Time Bounds for Interactive ProgramsabstractSome important domains of software demand concrete bounds on how long functions may run, for instance for real-time cyberphysical systems where missed deadlines may damage industrial machinery. Such programs may interact with external devices throughout execution, where time deadlines ought to depend on, for instance, sensor readings (e.g. we only scramble to close a valve immediately when a sensor reports that a tank is about to overflow). We present the first software-development toolchain that delivers first-principles proofs of meaningful time bounds for interactive machine code, while allowing all per-application programming and verification to happen at the source-code level. We allow C-like programs to be proved against separation-logic specifications that also constrain their running time, and such proofs are composed with verification of a compiler to RISC-V machine code. All components are implemented and proved inside the Rocq proof assistant, producing final theorems whose statements depend only on machine-language formal semantics and some elementary specification constructions for describing running time. As a capstone case study, we extended a past verification (of a real microcontroller-based cyberphysical system) to bound time between arrival of network packets and actuation of an attached device. Andy Tockman, Pratap Singh, Andres Erbsen, Samuel Gruetter, Adam Chlipala |
CPP | 2 |
| 2026 | AI-Augmented Multi-Factor Subnet Selection for Dynamic Network Slice Creation in 3GPP Networks
Pratap Singh, Karthikeyan Subramaniam, Sunil N |
ICC | 1 |
| 2025 | Vest: Verified, Secure, High-Performance Parsing and Serialization for Rust
Pratap Singh, Zhengyao Lin, Jay Bosamiya, Joshua Gancher, Milijana Surbatovich, Bryan Parno |
USENIX Security Symposium | 2 |
| 2025 | Towards Practical, End-to-End Formally Verified X.509 Certificate Validators with Verdict
Zhengyao Lin, Michael McLoughlin, Pratap Singh, Rory Brennan-Jones, Paul Hitchcox, Joshua Gancher, Bryan Parno |
USENIX Security Symposium | 3 |
| 2025 | OwlC: Compiling Security Protocols to Verified, Secure, High-Performance Libraries
Pratap Singh, Joshua Gancher, Bryan Parno |
USENIX Security Symposium | 1 |
| 2023 | Owl: Compositional Verification of Security Protocols via an Information-Flow Type SystemabstractComputationally sound protocol verification tools promise to deliver full-strength cryptographic proofs for security protocols. Unfortunately, current tools lack either modularity or automation. We propose a new approach based on a novel use of information flow and refinement types for sound cryptographic proofs. Our framework, Owl, allows type-based modular descriptions of security protocols, wherein disjoint subprotocols can be programmed and automatically proved secure separately.We give a formal security proof for Owl via a core language which supports symmetric and asymmetric primitives, Diffie-Hellman operations, and hashing via random oracles. We also implement a type checker for Owl and a prototype extraction mechanism to Rust, and evaluate both on 14 case studies, including (simplified forms of) SSH key exchange and Kerberos. Joshua Gancher, Sydney Gibson, Pratap Singh, Samvid Dharanikota, Bryan Parno |
SP | 3 |
| 2023 | Tectonic-Shift: A Composite Storage Fabric for Large-Scale ML Training
Mark Zhao, Satadru Pan, Niket Agarwal, Zhaoduo Wen, David Xu 0010, Shiva Shankar P., Ritesh Tijoriwala, Karan Asher, Aarti Basant, Daniel Ford, Delia David, Nezih Yigitbasi, Pratap Singh, Carole-Jean Wu |
USENIX ATC | 16 |
| 2023 | Flexible Instruction-Set Semantics via Abstract Monads (Experience Report)abstractInstruction sets, from families like x86 and ARM, are at the center of many ambitious formal-methods projects. Many verification, synthesis, programming, and debugging tools rely on formal semantics of instruction sets, but different tools can use semantics in rather different ways. The best-known work applying single semantics across diverse tools relies on domain-specific languages like Sail, where the language and its translation tools are specialized to the realm of instruction sets. In the context of the open RISC-V instruction-set family, we decided to explore a different approach, with semantics written in a carefully chosen subset of Haskell. This style does not depend on any new language translators, relying instead on parameterization of semantics over type-class instances. We have used a single core semantics to support testing, interactive proof, and model checking of both software and hardware, demonstrating that monads and the ability to abstract over them using type classes can support pleasant prototyping of ISA semantics. Thomas Bourgeat, Ian Clester, Andres Erbsen, Samuel Gruetter, Pratap Singh, Andy Wright, Adam Chlipala |
Proc. ACM Program. Lang. | 5 |
| 2021 | Facebook's Tectonic Filesystem: Efficiency from Exascale
Satadru Pan, Theano Stavrinos, Yunqiao Zhang, Atul Sikaria, Pavel Zakharov, Shiva Shankar P., Mike Shuey, Richard Wareing, Monika Gangapuram, Guanglei Cao, Christian Preseau, Pratap Singh, Kestutis Patiejunas, J. R. Tipton, Ethan Katz-Bassett, Wyatt Lloyd |
FAST | 13 |