Demo Data from SIGIR 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
David G. Von Bank
dblp:43/6419
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 1994
—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 |
Programming languages and type systems · 100% | |
| Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
1 paper |
Distributed systems · 100% |
Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Programming languages and type systems
program equivalence |
0.0 | 1 | 1994 | A Unified Model of Pointwise Equivalence of Procedural Computations · ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 1994 |
Distributed systems › remote execution
computation migration |
0.0 | 1 | 1994 | A Unified Model of Pointwise Equivalence of Procedural Computations · ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 1994 |
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1994 | A Unified Model of Pointwise Equivalence of Procedural ComputationsabstractThe execution of a program on a processor is viewed as a representation of that program going through a sequence of states. Each state change is manifested by the execution of a single instruction. Models that depend on this perspective are presented. The first is a static model of a description of a procedural computation. This model formalizes the description of the information in an executable module. Following this dynamic model of a procedural computation is given. This second model describes how a computation transitions from state to state and how the states of a computation are represented. Next, the state of a procedural computation is defined at certain well-defined points in its progression. These points represent potential points of correspondence to another instance of the computation. Then, the equivalence of these well-defined computation states is described. This refinement eliminates the nonmatching potential correspondences. The remaining points describe where the two computations are in the same state. These are precisely the points of equivalence of procedural computations. This final model of pointwise equivalence can be applied to the problem of migrating a computation from one processor to another (possibly architecturally dissimilar) processor. David G. Von Bank, Charles M. Shub, Robert W. Sebesta |
ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. | 1 |