Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: What was the best CS paper you read in 2017?

news.ycombinator.com

91–100 of 131 posts

Re: Ask HN: What was the best CS paper you read in 2017?

#91
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to learn formal verification on my own. Do you know of any resources? I got Rolf Dreshler's book on circuit verification, but I would like to master both hardware and software. Would you kindly provide with some pointers?

Two schools: * Coq/dependent types. Check out Software Foundations by Benjamin Pierce, et. al. Everything's online. Also see Idris, which has a good book from Manning. * SMT-solver-based verification of existing languages. See SPARK/Ada (there's a good book but I can't remember the name presently) and the GNAT website. Also, Frama-C, although the documentation is more spotty. Then there's Rustan Leino's work on Dafny…

Isabelle/HOL (the one sel4 was done in) appears in none of your two schools ...

This might be because it is the best combination of interactive theorem proving with automated methods that currently exists out there.

Re: Ask HN: What was the best CS paper you read in 2017?

#92
I really liked Vlad Zamfir's papers on "correct-by-construction" consensus protocols. What I love about this work is that it unifies traditional BFT consensus with blockchain consensus to make something better than both! Really exciting!

Abstract CBC: https://github.com/ethereum/research/blob/master/papers/cbc-...

Casper the friendly GHOST: https://github.com/ethereum/research/blob/master/papers/Casp...

I found the Abstract CBC paper a little easier to understand, as it goes into more detail about the correct-by-construction process.

Re: Ask HN: What was the best CS paper you read in 2017?

#93
post #89
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you seen the results when they let a trained model manage Borg? The power reductions were immediate, non-trivial, and performance stayed the same. There's your scheduling result for you. Look at it this way. As the paper points out, a Hashtable is just a heuristic that works fairly well in the worst case and reasonably well in the average case. No one would argue that you couldn't hand-roll an algorithm that is…

Link to paper that cedes control of Borg?

Blog post: https://deepmind.com/blog/deepmind-ai-reduces-google-data-ce...

Whitepaper: https://docs.google.com/a/google.com/viewer?url=www.google.c...

Re: Ask HN: What was the best CS paper you read in 2017?

#95
post #32

Leslie Lamport's 1978 "State the Problem Before Describing the Solution" [0]. On his web page the author adds that "The title says it all. This one-page note is as relevant today as when I wrote it. Replace "describing the solution" by "writing the program" and it becomes a practical recipe for improving software." Herewith, the paper in full: "After several years of writing papers in computer science, I discovered t…

Thanks for this, this one is very relevant to industry(or at least to mine). The amount of software designs and programs that don't actually fit the technical/business problems from the get go is astounding.

Re: Ask HN: What was the best CS paper you read in 2017?

#99
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A very interesting read indeed! Besides HN how can one find great papers like this? How did you find out about it?

I'd recommend taking a look at Papers We Love https://github.com/papers-we-love/papers-we-love

Loved the two-minute papers channel that I came across on this list. Thanks!

Re: Ask HN: What was the best CS paper you read in 2017?

#100
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two schools: * Coq/dependent types. Check out Software Foundations by Benjamin Pierce, et. al. Everything's online. Also see Idris, which has a good book from Manning. * SMT-solver-based verification of existing languages. See SPARK/Ada (there's a good book but I can't remember the name presently) and the GNAT website. Also, Frama-C, although the documentation is more spotty. Then there's Rustan Leino's work on Dafny…

Isabelle/HOL (the one sel4 was done in) appears in none of your two schools ... This might be because it is the best combination of interactive theorem proving with automated methods that currently exists out there.

As far as I know, Isabelle/HOL is fairly similar to Coq, perhaps with more automation. If there is something like Software Foundations for Isabelle, I'd be slobbering all over myself in excitement to hear about it.

(And I'm still a little confused about how the C code of seL4 is verified against the formal specs. Is there something like Frama-C involved?)

Post reply on HN