Demo Data from SIGIR 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Yixuan Chen 0002
dblp:30/7103-2
· DBLP profile ↗
5ranked-venue papers
0as first author
4since 2021 · last 2024
0000-0001-8659-8493ORCID · verified
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 4 · 3 since 2021Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 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.
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
5 papers |
Program verification · 47% Concurrent programming · 43% Programming languages and type systems · 10% | |
| Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
1 paper |
Distributed systems · 67% Storage systems · 33% | |
| Theoretical computer science
2 papers |
Logic in computer science · 65% Distributed computing theory · 35% |
Topics — the 13 heaviest of 14, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Concurrent programming › atomicity
linearizability |
1.4 | 2 | 2024 | Compositionality and Observational Refinement for Linearizability with Crashes · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2024 A Compositional Theory of Linearizability · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2023 |
Program verification
concurrent program verification |
1.0 | 2 | 2022 | Armada: Automated Verification of Concurrent Code with Sound Semantic Extensibility · ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 2022 Armada: low-effort verification of high-performance concurrent programs · PLDI 2020 |
Concurrent programming
concurrency semantics |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | A Compositional Theory of Linearizability · J. ACM 2024 |
Program verification
program logic |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Compositionality and Observational Refinement for Linearizability with Crashes · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2024 |
Storage systems
crash safety |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Compositionality and Observational Refinement for Linearizability with Crashes · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2024 |
Distributed systems › consistency models
durable linearizability |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Compositionality and Observational Refinement for Linearizability with Crashes · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2024 |
Distributed systems
fault tolerance |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Compositionality and Observational Refinement for Linearizability with Crashes · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2024 |
Logic in computer science › concurrency theory
concurrency semantics |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | A Compositional Theory of Linearizability · J. ACM 2024 |
Distributed computing theory › shared memory consistency
linearizability |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | A Compositional Theory of Linearizability · J. ACM 2024 |
Program verification › modular reasoning
rely-guarantee reasoning |
0.7 | 2 | 2022 | Armada: Automated Verification of Concurrent Code with Sound Semantic Extensibility · ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 2022 Armada: low-effort verification of high-performance concurrent programs · PLDI 2020 |
Programming languages and type systems › language semantics
compositional semantics |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | A Compositional Theory of Linearizability · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2023 |
Concurrent programming › concurrent data structures
concurrent objects |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | A Compositional Theory of Linearizability · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2023 |
Logic in computer science
category theory |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | A Compositional Theory of Linearizability · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2023 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
program logic · 2.8observational refinement · 2.8category theory · 2.8karoubi envelope · 1.5compositional semantics · 1.5TSO elimination · 1.0SMT solving · 1.0pointer analysis · 0.6reduction · 0.4alias analysis · 0.4
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | A Compositional Theory of LinearizabilityabstractCompositionality is at the core of programming languages research and has become an important goal toward scalable verification of large systems. Despite that, there is no compositional account of linearizability , the gold standard of correctness for concurrent objects. In this article, we develop a compositional semantics for linearizable concurrent objects. We start by showcasing a common issue, which is independent of linearizability, in the construction of compositional models of concurrent computation: interaction with the neutral element for composition can lead to emergent behaviors, a hindrance to compositionality. Category theory provides a solution for the issue in the form of the Karoubi envelope. Surprisingly, and this is the main discovery of our work, this abstract construction is deeply related to linearizability and leads to a novel formulation of it. Notably, this new formulation neither relies on atomicity nor directly upon happens-before ordering and is only possible because of compositionality, revealing that linearizability and compositionality are intrinsically related to each other. We use this new, and compositional, understanding of linearizability to revisit much of the theory of linearizability, providing novel, simple, algebraic proofs of the locality property and of an analogue of the equivalence with observational refinement . We show our techniques can be used in practice by connecting our semantics with a simple program logic that is nonetheless sound concerning this generalized linearizability. Arthur Oliveira Vale, Zhong Shao 0001, Yixuan Chen 0002 |
J. ACM | 3 |
| 2024 | Compositionality and Observational Refinement for Linearizability with CrashesabstractCrash-safety is an important property of real systems, as the main functionality of some systems is resilience to crashes. Toward a compositional verification approach for crash-safety under full-system crashes, one observes that crashes propagate instantaneously to all components across all levels of abstraction, even to unspecified components, hindering compositionality. Furthermore, in the presence of concurrency, a correctness criterion that addresses both crashes and concurrency proves necessary. For this, several adaptations of linearizability have been suggested, each featuring different trade-offs between complexity and expressiveness. The recently proposed compositional linearizability framework shows that to achieve compositionality with linearizability, both a locality and observational refinement property are necessary. Despite that, no linearizability criterion with crashes has been proven to support an observational refinement property. In this paper, we define a compositional model of concurrent computation with full-system crashes. We use this model to develop a compositional theory of linearizability with crashes, which reveals a criterion, crash-aware linearizability , as its inherent notion of linearizability and supports both locality and observational refinement. We then show that strict linearizability and durable linearizability factor through crash-aware linearizability as two different ways of translating between concurrent computation with and without crashes, enabling simple proofs of locality and observational refinement for a generalization of these two criteria. Then, we show how the theory can be connected with a program logic for durable and crash-aware linearizability, which gives the first program logic that verifies a form of linearizability with crashes. We showcase the advantages of compositionality by verifying a library facilitating programming persistent data structures and a fragment of a transactional interface for a file system. Arthur Oliveira Vale, Zhongye Wang, Yixuan Chen 0002, Peixin You, Zhong Shao 0001 |
Proc. ACM Program. Lang. | 3 |
| 2023 | A Compositional Theory of LinearizabilityabstractCompositionality is at the core of programming languages research and has become an important goal toward scalable verification of large systems. Despite that, there is no compositional account of linearizability, the gold standard of correctness for concurrent objects. In this paper, we develop a compositional semantics for linearizable concurrent objects. We start by showcasing a common issue, which is independent of linearizability, in the construction of compositional models of concurrent computation: interaction with the neutral element for composition can lead to emergent behaviors, a hindrance to compositionality. Category theory provides a solution for the issue in the form of the Karoubi envelope. Surprisingly, and this is the main discovery of our work, this abstract construction is deeply related to linearizability and leads to a novel formulation of it. Notably, this new formulation neither relies on atomicity nor directly upon happens-before ordering and is only possible because of compositionality, revealing that linearizability and compositionality are intrinsically related to each other. We use this new, and compositional, understanding of linearizability to revisit much of the theory of linearizability, providing novel, simple, algebraic proofs of the locality property and of an analogue of the equivalence with observational refinement. We show our techniques can be used in practice by connecting our semantics with a simple program logic that is nonetheless sound concerning this generalized linearizability. Arthur Oliveira Vale, Zhong Shao 0001, Yixuan Chen 0002 |
Proc. ACM Program. Lang. | 3 |
| 2022 | Armada: Automated Verification of Concurrent Code with Sound Semantic ExtensibilityabstractSafely writing high-performance concurrent programs is notoriously difficult. To aid developers, we introduce Armada, a language and tool designed to formally verify such programs with relatively little effort. Via a C-like language and a small-step, state-machine-based semantics, Armadagives developers the flexibility to choose arbitrary memory layout and synchronization primitives so that they are never constrained in their pursuit of performance. To reduce developer effort, Armadaleverages SMT-powered automation and a library of powerful reasoning techniques, including rely-guarantee, TSO elimination, reduction, and pointer analysis. All of these techniques are proven sound, and Armadacan be soundly extended with additional strategies over time. Using Armada, we verify five concurrent case studies and show that we can achieve performance equivalent to that of unverified code. Jacob R. Lorch, Yixuan Chen 0002, Manos Kapritsos, Haojun Ma, Bryan Parno, Shaz Qadeer, Upamanyu Sharma, James R. Wilcox, Xueyuan Zhao |
ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. | 2 |
| 2020 | Armada: low-effort verification of high-performance concurrent programsabstractSafely writing high-performance concurrent programs is notoriously difficult. To aid developers, we introduce Armada, a language and tool designed to formally verify such programs with relatively little effort. Via a C-like language and a small-step, state-machine-based semantics, Armada gives developers the flexibility to choose arbitrary memory layout and synchronization primitives so they are never constrained in their pursuit of performance. To reduce developer effort, Armada leverages SMT-powered automation and a library of powerful reasoning techniques, including rely-guarantee, TSO elimination, reduction, and alias analysis. All these techniques are proven sound, and Armada can be soundly extended with additional strategies over time. Using Armada, we verify four concurrent case studies and show that we can achieve performance equivalent to that of unverified code. Jacob R. Lorch, Yixuan Chen 0002, Manos Kapritsos, Bryan Parno, Shaz Qadeer, Upamanyu Sharma, James R. Wilcox, Xueyuan Zhao |
PLDI | 2 |