DOCSLIB.ORG

BPM Newsletter

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
BPM Newsletter BPM Newsletter Volume 3, Issue 2 August, 2014 BPM 2014: One Month to Go This newsletter provides an full research and industry pa- registration deadline has been update on the BPM 2014 pro- pers, and 10 short papers. The extended until 15 August to gram. BPM will take place organizers and chairs are close- give participants more time to in Haifa, Israel’s beauti- ly monitoring the situation in register. Contact the BPM 2014 ful seaport on the Mediterra- Southern Israel and Gaza. We organizers if you have any nean. The program features 3 hope and expect that a firm concerns relating to registra- keynotes, 2 tutorials, 10 work- cease-fire will be reached be- tion and other arrangements shops, and presentations of 21 fore the conference. The early ([email protected]). Interview with Joseph Sifakis In this newsletter you will also the area of model-checking. In find an interview with Turing 2007 he received the Turing Award winner Professor Jo- Award (the "Nobel Prize of seph Sifakis on process model- computing") with Clarke and ing and verification and the Emerson, for his contributions relation between his work and to model-checking. Although BPM. Sifakis is well-known for Joseph did not work on BPM his pioneering work in theo- himself, his techniques have retical and practical aspects of been applied in the context of concurrent systems specifica- business process analysis (e.g. tion and verification, notably in workflow verification). BPM 2014 high- Survey By the BPM 2015 Program Chairs lights BPM survey BPM 2015 will take place in ducted a survey with present Joseph Sifakis Innsbruck. Barbara Weber and past attendees and sub- will be the general chair of mitters to the BPM conference. BPM Roundtable this event. The event will be The survey was intended to “Procesje”: Fun hosted by the University of search for possible points of with BPM Innsbruck. improvement and to gather News from the The Program Committee feedback on the general per- community Chairs of BPM 2015 (Jan ception of the conference. The Recker, Matthias Weidlich, results are included in this and Hamid Motahari) con- newsletter. P AGE 2 B P M N EWSLETTER 12th International Conference on Business Process Management, 7 -12 September 2014, Haifa, Israel BPM 2014 will take place in Haifa. Haifa Given the recent developments in is situated on the Carmel Mountain, Southern Israel and Gaza, the organiz- overlooking the Haifa bay and the ers and chairs are closely following the mountains of Galilee, and has panoram- situation and will update as things un- ic views as well as beautiful sandy fold. They urge participants, and in par- beaches. Haifa is also an industrial cen- ticular presenters in the main confer- ter, housing the R&D labs of interna- ence and the workshops, to contact tional corporations. Israel's rich history them at [email protected] with and cultural heritage attracts millions of any concerns relating to registration tourists each year, with sacred places to and other arrangements. three religions. Some of these sites, such as Nazareth and the Sea of Galilee, are The following social events are planned: in the vicinity of Haifa. The conference A tour in the unique and spectacu- will be held at the University of Haifa, lar Bahai Gardens whose beautiful campus is at the top of Workshops reception at IBM Haifa Mt. Carmel. Online registration can be Research Lab done via: An evening on Haifa beach http://bpm2014.haifa.ac.il/practical- A Banquette and a tour in Rosh details/registration. Hanikra - the spectacular limestone grottoes (or sea caves) situated on the Mediterranean water front. I SSUE 2 / 2 0 1 4 P AGE 3 BPM 2014 Program Highlights BPM 2014 will feature 3 keynotes by re- 3rd Workshop on Security in International Workshop on Deci- nowned experts: Rob High (IBM), Yuval Business Processes (SBP'14) sion Mining & Modeling for Busi- Shahar (Ben Gurion University), and Keith 4th International Workshop on ness Processes (DeMiMoP’14) Swenson (Fujitsu). There will be two tuto- Process Model Collections: Man- rials one on “Describing Services through agement and Reuse But there is more: USDL” and one on “Flexible Business Pro- International Workshop on Busi- A Doctoral Consortium, devoted to cess Modelling through the Dynamic ness Processes in Collective fresh PhD research in the BPM area Condition Response Graphs paradigm”. Adaptive Systems (BPCAS'14) An exciting demo session hosted See http://bpm2014.haifa.ac.il for details. 3rd Workshop Data- & Artifact- by IBM Haifa Research lab centric BPM (DAB'14) A panel on the past and future of 10th International Workshop on BPM research Business Process Intelligence An event in honor of Peter Dadam (BPI'14) and his contribution to BPM 2nd International Workshop on The 11th International Workshop Business Process Management on Web Services and Formal Meth- in the Cloud (BPMC'14) ods 3rd International Workshop on Theory and Applications of Pro- Moreover, the main conference track The following 10 workshops will take cess Visualization (TaProViz'14) will feature presentations of 21 full re- place at BPM 2014: 7th Workshop on Business Pro- search and industry papers, and 10 7th International Workshop on Pro- cess Management and Social short papers. cess-oriented Information Systems in Software (BPS'14) Healthcare (ProHealth’14) Hope to see you in Haifa! P AGE 4 B P M N EWSLETTER Accepted papers tics, Massimiliano de Leoni, Wil sion of BPMN, Martin Schultz and van der Aalst and Marcus Dees Michael Radloff Full research and industry papers Hierarchical Declarative Model- Short papers Chopping Down Trees vs. Sharpen- ling with Refinement and Sub- processes, Søren Debois, Thom- ing the Axe – Balancing the Devel- as Hildebrandt and Tijs Slaats DRain: A Novel Framework for opment of BPM Capabilities with QoR-driven Dynamic Data- Process Improvement, Martin Dealing with Changes of Time- Intensive Analytics Processes, Aitor Lehnert, Alexander Linhart and Aware Processes, Andreas Lanz Murguzur, Johannes M. Schleicher, Maximilian Roeglinger and Manfred Reichert Hong-Linh Truong, Salvador Trujil- Crowd-Based Mining of Reusable Discovering Target-Branched lo and Schahram Dustdar Process Model Patterns Carlos Ro- Declare Constraints, Claudio Di Use Your Best Device! - Enabling driguez, Florian Daniel and Fabio Ciccio, Fabrizio Maggi and Jan Device Changes at Runtime, Den- Casati Mendling nis Bokermann, Christian Gerth Behavioral Comparison of Process Temporal Anomaly Detection in and Gregor Engels Models Based on Canonically Re- Business Processes, Andreas The Automated Discovery of Hy- duced Event Structures, Abel Ar- Rogge-Solti and Gjergji Kasneci brid Processes, Fabrizio Maria Mag- mas-Cervantes, Paolo Baldan, Mar- Listen to me: Improving Process gi, Tijs Slaats and Hajo A. Reijers lon Dumas and Luciano García- Model Matching through User Bañuelos Feedback, Christopher Klink- Declarative Process Model Mining: A Recommender System for Pro- müller, Ingo Weber, Henrik Leo- an Approach to Reduce Complexi- ty by Preprocessing Event Logs, cess Discovery, Joel Ribeiro, Josep pold, Jan Mendling and Andre Pedro Richetti, Fernanda Baião Carmona, Mustafa Misir and Ludwig and Flávia Santoro Michele Sebag Implicit BPM: a Business Process Monitoring Framework for Process Monitoring Business Metacon- Platform for Transparent Work- Discovery Based on Dynamic Con- straints Based on LTL & LDL for f l o w W e a v i n g , R u b e n text Hierarchy Associations, Mari Finite Traces, Giuseppe De Giaco- Mondejar, Pedro Garcia Lopez, Abe and Michiharu Kudo mo, Riccardo De Masellis, Marco Carles Pairot and Enric Brull Grasso, Fabrizio Maria Maggi and Analysis of Operational Data for SECPI: Searching for Explanations Marco Montali Expertise Aware Staffing, Re- for Clustered Process Instances, Beyond Tasks and Gateways: Dis- nuka Sindhgatta, Gaargi B. Das- Jochen De Weerdt and Seppe Vanden Broucke covering BPMN Models with Sub- gupta and Aditya Ghose processes, Boundary Events and A genetic algorithm for process Strategies for Specifying Flexible Multi-Instance Markers, Raffaele discovery guided by complete- Human Behavior in Interaction- Conforti, Marlon Dumas, Luciano ness, precision and simplicity, Intensive Process Environments, García-Bañuelos and Marcello La Borja Vázquez-Barreiros, Ma- Christoph Dorn, Schahram Dust- Rosa nuel Mucientes and Manuel dar and Leon Osterweil Where did I go wrong? - Explaining Lama Assessing the Need for Visibility of errors in business process models, From a family of state based Business Processes, Enrico Graup- Niels Lohmann and Dirk Fahland PAIS to a configurable and pa- ner, Martin Berner, Alexander Mining Resource-Scheduling Proto- rameterized business process Maedche and Harshavardhan Jegadeesan cols, Arik Senderovich, Matthias architecture, Andreas Rulle and Weidlich, Avigdor Gal and Avishai Juliane Siegeris Predictive Task Monitoring for Busi- Mandelbaum Constructs Competition Miner: ness Processes, Cristina Cabanillas, User-Friendly Property Specification Process Control-flow Discovery Claudio Di Ciccio, Jan Mendling and Anne Baumgrass and Process Verification – a Case of BP-domain Constructs, David Study with Vehicle-Commissioning Redlich, Thomas Molka, Gordon Separating Execution and Data Processes, Richard Mrasek, Jutta Blair, Awais Rashid and Wasif Management: A Key to Business- Mülle, Michael Becker, Klemens Gilani Process-as-a-Service (BPaaS), Yutian Böhm and Christian Allmann Modeling Concepts for Internal Sun, Jianwen Su and Jian Yang
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Obituary: Amir Pnueli, 1941–2009 Krzysztof R. Apt and Lenore D. Zuck
    Obituary: Amir Pnueli, 1941–2009 Krzysztof R. Apt and Lenore D. Zuck Amir Pnueli was born in Nahalal, Israel, on April 22, 1941 and passed away in New York City on November 2, 2009 as a result of a brain hemorrhage. Amir founded the computer science department in Tel-Aviv University in 1973. In 1981 he joined the department of mathematical sciences at the Weiz- mann Institute of Science, where he spent most of his career and where he held the Estrin family chair. In recent years, Amir was a faculty member at New York University where he was a NYU Silver Professor. Throughout his career, in spite of an impressive list of achievements, Amir remained an extremely modest and selfless researcher. His unique combination of excellence and integrity has set the tone in the large community of researchers working on specification and verification of programs and systems, program semantics and automata theory. Amir was devoid of any arrogance and those who knew him as a young promising researcher were struck how he maintained his modesty throughout his career. Amir has been an active and extremely hard working researcher till the last moment. His sudden death left those who knew him in a state of shock and disbelief. For his achievements Amir received the 1996 ACM Turing Award. The citation reads: “For seminal work introducing temporal logic into computing science and for outstanding contributions to program and system verification.” Amir also received, for his contributions, the 2000 Israel Award in the area of exact sciences. More recently, in 2007, he shared the ACM Software System Award.
    [Show full text]
  • Pdf, 184.84 KB
    Nir Piterman, Associate Professor Coordinates Email: fi[email protected] Homepage: www.cs.le.ac.uk/people/np183 Phone: +44-XX-XXXX-XXXX Research Interests My research area is formal verification. I am especially interested in algorithms for model checking and design synthesis. A major part of my work is on the automata-theoretic approach to verification and especially to model checking. I am also working on applications of formal methods to biological modeling. Qualifications Oct. 2000 { Mar. 2005 Ph.D. in the Department of Computer Science and Applied Mathe- matics at the Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel. • Research Area: Formal Verification. • Thesis: Verification of Infinite-State Systems. • Supervisor: Prof. Amir Pnueli. Oct. 1998 { Oct. 2000 M.Sc. in the Department of Computer Science and Applied Mathe- matics at the Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel. • Research Area: Formal Verification. • Thesis: Extending Temporal Logic with !-Automata. • Supervisor: Prof. Amir Pnueli and Prof. Moshe Vardi. Oct. 1994 { June 1997 B.Sc. in Mathematics and Computer Science in the Hebrew Univer- sity, Jerusalem, Israel. Academic Employment Mar. 2019 { Present Senior Lecturer/Associate Professor in the Department of Com- puter Science and Engineering in University of Gothenburg. Oct. 2012 { Feb. 2019 Reader/Associate Professor in the Department of Informatics in University of Leicester. Oct. 2010 { Sep. 2012 Lecturer in the Department of Computer Science in University of Leicester. Aug. 2007 { Sep. 2010 Research Associate in the Department of Computing in Imperial College London. Host: Dr. Michael Huth Oct. 2004 { July 2007 PostDoc in the school of Computer and Communication Sciences at the Ecole Polytechnique F´ed´eralede Lausanne.
    [Show full text]
  • The Best Nurturers in Computer Science Research
    The Best Nurturers in Computer Science Research Bharath Kumar M. Y. N. Srikant IISc-CSA-TR-2004-10 http://archive.csa.iisc.ernet.in/TR/2004/10/ Computer Science and Automation Indian Institute of Science, India October 2004 The Best Nurturers in Computer Science Research Bharath Kumar M.∗ Y. N. Srikant† Abstract The paper presents a heuristic for mining nurturers in temporally organized collaboration networks: people who facilitate the growth and success of the young ones. Specifically, this heuristic is applied to the computer science bibliographic data to find the best nurturers in computer science research. The measure of success is parameterized, and the paper demonstrates experiments and results with publication count and citations as success metrics. Rather than just the nurturer’s success, the heuristic captures the influence he has had in the indepen- dent success of the relatively young in the network. These results can hence be a useful resource to graduate students and post-doctoral can- didates. The heuristic is extended to accurately yield ranked nurturers inside a particular time period. Interestingly, there is a recognizable deviation between the rankings of the most successful researchers and the best nurturers, which although is obvious from a social perspective has not been statistically demonstrated. Keywords: Social Network Analysis, Bibliometrics, Temporal Data Mining. 1 Introduction Consider a student Arjun, who has finished his under-graduate degree in Computer Science, and is seeking a PhD degree followed by a successful career in Computer Science research. How does he choose his research advisor? He has the following options with him: 1. Look up the rankings of various universities [1], and apply to any “rea- sonably good” professor in any of the top universities.
    [Show full text]
  • Sooner Is Safer Than Later Department of Computer Science
    May 1991 Report No. STAN-CS-91-1360 Sooner is Safer Than Later bY Thomas A. Henzinger Department of Computer Science Stanford University Stanford, California 94305 f- Awwtd REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE ma No. 07044188 rt8d to wwq8 I how ou r-. lncllJdlng the ttm8 for nvmwlng tn8uuctl -. wrrtruq 82lsung e8t8 wurcg% Wv*lnQ th8 cOlM(0n Of dormatlon Sand comrrmo I ‘-‘9 th* -om mmate Q arty otwr m ol tha bwdm. to Wnkqtoft ~*dourrtw~ Sewc~. Duator8toT or tnformrt8oe ooer0tm aw v, 121~ - O(cltr of Muwgrmw wbd beget. ?8oemon adato + @~o*olI(i. Woahington. DC 2oSO3. I. AGENCY USE ONLY (Lea- bhd) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED s/28 p?( I. TITLE AND SulTlTLt 5. FUNDING NUMbERI SomEFz, 15 BIER T&W L-Am 1. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS 8. PERFORMING ORGANJZATION REPORT NUMIER jhpx OF- CO~PU’i-ER scii&E STANWD I)tdfhzs’;p/ . 5q-JWFi3RD) CA 9&S I. SPONSORING I’ MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS 10. SPONSORING / MONlTORiNG AGENCY REPORT NUMBER 3ARi’A bJQx39 - 84 c - 020 fd&XW, VA 2220~ I 1. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES . 12r. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT lib. DiStRlBUfiON CODE urjL?M:m E. ABSTRACT (Maxrmum 200 words) Abstract. It has been repeatedly observed that the standard safety-liveness classification of properties of reactive systems does not fit for real-time proper- ties. This is because the implicit “liveness” of time shifts the spectrum towards the safety side. While, for example, response - that “something good” will happen, eventually - is a classical liveness property, bounded response - that “something good” will happen soon, within a certain amount of time - has many characteristics of safety.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:2106.11534V1 [Cs.DL] 22 Jun 2021 2 Nanjing University of Science and Technology, Nanjing, China 3 University of Southampton, Southampton, U.K
    Noname manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) Turing Award elites revisited: patterns of productivity, collaboration, authorship and impact Yinyu Jin1 · Sha Yuan1∗ · Zhou Shao2, 4 · Wendy Hall3 · Jie Tang4 Received: date / Accepted: date Abstract The Turing Award is recognized as the most influential and presti- gious award in the field of computer science(CS). With the rise of the science of science (SciSci), a large amount of bibliographic data has been analyzed in an attempt to understand the hidden mechanism of scientific evolution. These include the analysis of the Nobel Prize, including physics, chemistry, medicine, etc. In this article, we extract and analyze the data of 72 Turing Award lau- reates from the complete bibliographic data, fill the gap in the lack of Turing Award analysis, and discover the development characteristics of computer sci- ence as an independent discipline. First, we show most Turing Award laureates have long-term and high-quality educational backgrounds, and more than 61% of them have a degree in mathematics, which indicates that mathematics has played a significant role in the development of computer science. Secondly, the data shows that not all scholars have high productivity and high h-index; that is, the number of publications and h-index is not the leading indicator for evaluating the Turing Award. Third, the average age of awardees has increased from 40 to around 70 in recent years. This may be because new breakthroughs take longer, and some new technologies need time to prove their influence. Besides, we have also found that in the past ten years, international collabo- ration has experienced explosive growth, showing a new paradigm in the form of collaboration.
    [Show full text]
  • Amir Pnueli University of Pennsylvania, Pa. 191D4 and Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
    THE TEMPORAL LOGIC OF PROGRAMS* Amir Pnueli University of Pennsylvania, Pa. 191D4 and Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel Summary: grams, always considered functional programs only. Those are programs with distinct beginning and end, and A unified approach to program verification is sane canputational instructions in between, whose suggested, which applies to both sequential and statement of correctness consists of the description parallel programs. The main proof method suggested is of the func tion of the input variables c anputed on that of temporal reasoning in which the time depend­ successful cOOlpletion. This approach canpletely ence of events is the basic concept. Two forma 1 ignored an important class of operating system or systems are presented for providing a basis for tem­ real time type programs, for which halting is rather poral reasoning. One forms a formalization of the an abnormal situation. Only recently 10,11,19 have method of intermittent assertions, while the other is people begun investigating the concept of correctness an adaptation of the tense logic system Kb, and is for non-terminating cyclic programs. It seems that the notion of temporal implication is the correct one. particularly suitable for reasoning about concurrent Thus, a specification of correctness for an operating programs. system may be that it responds correctly to any incoming request, expressible as: {Request arrival O. Introduction situation }~ System grants request }. Due to increasing maturity in the research on Similar to the unification of correctness basic program verification, and the increasing interest and concepts, there seems to be a unification in the basic understanding of the behavior of concurrent programs, proof methods.
    [Show full text]
  • Alan Mathison Turing and the Turing Award Winners
    Alan Turing and the Turing Award Winners A Short Journey Through the History of Computer TítuloScience do capítulo Luis Lamb, 22 June 2012 Slides by Luis C. Lamb Alan Mathison Turing A.M. Turing, 1951 Turing by Stephen Kettle, 2007 by Slides by Luis C. Lamb Assumptions • I assume knowlege of Computing as a Science. • I shall not talk about computing before Turing: Leibniz, Babbage, Boole, Gödel... • I shall not detail theorems or algorithms. • I shall apologize for omissions at the end of this presentation. • Comprehensive information about Turing can be found at http://www.mathcomp.leeds.ac.uk/turing2012/ • The full version of this talk is available upon request. Slides by Luis C. Lamb Alan Mathison Turing § Born 23 June 1912: 2 Warrington Crescent, Maida Vale, London W9 Google maps Slides by Luis C. Lamb Alan Mathison Turing: short biography • 1922: Attends Hazlehurst Preparatory School • ’26: Sherborne School Dorset • ’31: King’s College Cambridge, Maths (graduates in ‘34). • ’35: Elected to Fellowship of King’s College Cambridge • ’36: Publishes “On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the Entscheindungsproblem”, Journal of the London Math. Soc. • ’38: PhD Princeton (viva on 21 June) : “Systems of Logic Based on Ordinals”, supervised by Alonzo Church. • Letter to Philipp Hall: “I hope Hitler will not have invaded England before I come back.” • ’39 Joins Bletchley Park: designs the “Bombe”. • ’40: First Bombes are fully operational • ’41: Breaks the German Naval Enigma. • ’42-44: Several contibutions to war effort on codebreaking; secure speech devices; computing. • ’45: Automatic Computing Engine (ACE) Computer. Slides by Luis C.
    [Show full text]
  • COMP 516 Research Methods in Computer Science Research Methods in Computer Science Lecture 3: Who Is Who in Computer Science Research
    COMP 516 COMP 516 Research Methods in Computer Science Research Methods in Computer Science Lecture 3: Who is Who in Computer Science Research Dominik Wojtczak Dominik Wojtczak Department of Computer Science University of Liverpool Department of Computer Science University of Liverpool 1 / 24 2 / 24 Prizes and Awards Alan M. Turing (1912-1954) Scientific achievement is often recognised by prizes and awards Conferences often give a best paper award, sometimes also a best “The father of modern computer science” student paper award In 1936 introduced Turing machines, as a thought Example: experiment about limits of mechanical computation ICALP Best Paper Prize (Track A, B, C) (Church-Turing thesis) For the best paper, as judged by the program committee Gives rise to the concept of Turing completeness and Professional organisations also give awards based on varying Turing reducibility criteria In 1939/40, Turing designed an electromechanical machine which Example: helped to break the german Enigma code British Computer Society Roger Needham Award His main contribution was an cryptanalytic machine which used Made annually for a distinguished research contribution in computer logic-based techniques science by a UK based researcher within ten years of their PhD In the 1950 paper ‘Computing machinery and intelligence’ Turing Arguably, the most prestigious award in Computer Science is the introduced an experiment, now called the Turing test A. M. Turing Award 2012 is the Alan Turing year! 3 / 24 4 / 24 Turing Award Turing Award Winners What contribution have the following people made? The A. M. Turing Award is given annually by the Association for Who among them has received the Turing Award? Computing Machinery to an individual selected for contributions of a technical nature made Frances E.
    [Show full text]
  • COS 360 Programming Languages Formal Semantics
    COS 360 Programming Languages Formal Semantics Semantics has to do with meaning, and typically the meaning of a complex whole is a function of the meaning of its parts. Just as in an English sentence, we parse a sentence into subject, verb, objects, adjectives(noun qualifiers) and adverbs(verb qualifiers), so with a program we break it up into control structures, statements, expressions, each of which has a meaning. The meanings of the constituents contribute to the meaning of the program as a whole. Another way this is put is to say that the semantics is compositional en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denotational_semantics#Compositionality Consequently, the grammar of a language guides the exposition of its meaning. Each of the three approaches to formal semantics, axiomatic, operational, and denotational, will use the grammar as a structuring device to explain the meaning. The grammar used, however, is not the same one that the compiler’s parser uses. It eliminates the punctuation and just contains the relevant, meaning carrying pieces and is often ambiguous, but the notion is that the parsing has already taken place and the parse tree simplified to what is referred to as an abstract syntax tree. Learning Objectives 1. to understand the difference between the abstract syntax trees used in expositions of semantics and the concrete syntax trees, or parse trees, used in parsing 2. to understand how the abstract syntax tree contributes to the explanation of program- ming language semantics 3. to understand the three major approaches to programming language semantics: ax- iomatic, operational, and denotational 4. to understand how axiomatic semantics can be used to prove algorithms are correct 5.
    [Show full text]
  • 20Th International Conference on Computer Aided Verifi Cation PRINCETON July 7–14UNIVERSITY P R I N C E T O N
    20 ANNIVERSARY 20 TH 08 CAV20th International Conference on Computer Aided Verifi cation PRINCETON July 7–14UNIVERSITY P r i n c e t o n . N e w J e r s e y . U S A www.princeton.edu/cav2008 South facade of Nassau Hall (1756), Princeton University; photo by Denise Applewhite INVITED SPEAKERS INVITED TUTORIALS AFFILIATED EVENTS WORKSHOPS July 7, 8, and 14 Edward Felten Princeton University Harry Foster Mentor Graphics CAV Award AFM: Automated Formal Methods James Larus Microsoft Research John Harrison Intel HW-MC-Comp BPR: Bit Precise Reasoning Peter O’Hearn University of London SMT-Comp (EC)^2: Exploiting Concurrency Effi ciently and Correctly Reinhard Wilhelm Saarland University FAC: Formal verifi cation of Analog Circuits HAV: Heap Analysis and Verifi cation NSV: Numerical abstractions for Software Verifi cation SMT: Satisfi ability Modulo Theories CONFERENCE CHAIRS PROGRAM COMMITTEE Aarti Gupta NEC Labs America Rajeev Alur University of Pennsylvania Aarti Gupta NEC Labs America Sharad Malik Princeton University Sharad Malik Princeton University Nina Amla Cadence David Harel Weizmann Institute Ken McMillan Cadence WORKSHOPS CHAIR Clark Barrett New York University John Harrison Intel Kedar Namjoshi Bell Labs, Alcatel-Lucent Byron Cook Microsoft Research Armin Biere Johannes Kepler Universität Linz Thomas A. Henzinger EPFL Corina Pasareanu NASA TUTORIALS CHAIR Roderick Bloem Graz University of Technology Holger Hermanns Saarland University Amir Pnueli New York University Ahmed Bouajjani University Paris 7 Pei-Hsin Ho Synopsys Andreas Podelski University of Freiburg Alan Hu University of British Columbia Alessandro Cimatti IRST Trento Robert Jones Intel Shaz Qadeer Microsoft Research STEERING COMMITTEE Werner Damm Oldenburg University Daniel Kroening Oxford University Koushik Sen University of California–Berkeley Edmund M.
    [Show full text]
  • Computing Paradigm Not a Branch of Science
    letters to the editor DOI:10.1145/1721654.1721657 Computing Paradigm Not a Branch of Science EGINNING WITH THE headline, generically called “computer,” but is key element in all complex computing “Computing’s Paradigm,” a misleading connection, since the domains. Moreover, understanding is The Profession of IT View- two disciplines describe the computer associated with modeling, a key aspect point by Peter J. Denning in different ways—a formal model of of understanding. One cannot deter- and Peter A. Freeman (Dec. computation in Knuth-Dijkstra com- mine whether a system can be built or B2009) reflected some confusion with puting, an actual machine in Denning- represented without the understanding respect to Thomas Kuhn’s notion of Freeman computing. needed to pose hypotheses, theses, or “paradigm” (a set of social and insti- Denning and Freeman proposed formal requirements. Understanding is tutional norms that regulate “normal a “framework” that takes the side of often not addressed very well by begin- science” over a period of time). Para- engineering computing (why I call it ning computing researchers and devel- digms, said Kuhn, are incommensu- Denning-Freeman computing), de- opers, especially as it pertains to infor- rable but determined by the social scribing development of an engineer- mation processes. discourse of the environment in which ing system and leaving no doubt as to The second missing element of con- science develops. the envisioned nature of the discipline. ceptualization is an explicit statement The crux of the matter seems to be All the purportedly different fields they about bounded rationality, per Her- that computing can’t be viewed as a proposed—from robotics to informa- bert Simon (http://en.wikipedia.org/ branch of science since it doesn’t deal tion processing in DNA—are actually wiki/Bounded_rationality), a concept with nature but with an artifact, namely different applications of the same para- based on the fact that the rationality of the computer.
    [Show full text]
  • Etude on Recursion Elimination by Program Manipulation and Problem Analysis
    Etude on Recursion Elimination by Program Manipulation and Problem Analysis Nikolay V. Shilov Innopolis University Russia [email protected] Transformation-based program verification was a very important research topic in early years of theory of programming. Great computer scientists contributed to these studies: John McCarthy, Amir Pnueli, Donald Knuth ... Many fascinating examples were examined and resulted in recursion elimination techniques known as tail-recursion and as co-recursion. In the present paper we examine another (new we believe) example of recursion elimination via program manipulations and problem analysis. The recursion pattern of the study example matches neither tail-recursion nor co-recursion pattern. 1 Introduction 1.1 McCarthy 91 function Let us start with a short story [7] about the McCarthy 91 function M : N ! N, defined by John McCarthy1 as a test case for formal verification. The function is defined recursively as n − 10, if n > 100; M(n) = M(M(n + 11)), if n ≤ 100. The result of evaluating the function are given by n − 10, if n > 101; M(n) = (1) 91, if n ≤ 101. The function was introduced in papers published by Zohar Manna, Amir Pnueli and John McCarthy in 1970 [15, 16]. These papers represented early developments towards the application of formal methods to program verification. The function has a “complex” recursion pattern (contrasted with simple patterns, such as recurrence, tail-recursion or co-recursion). Nevertheless the McCarthy 91 function can be computed by an iterative algorithm/program. Really, let us consider an auxiliary recursive function Maux : N × N ! N 8 n m < , if = 0; Maux(n;m) = Maux(n − 10; m − 1), if n > 100 and m > 0; : Maux(n + 11; m + 1), if n < 100 and m > 0.
    [Show full text]