BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Mnacho Echenim

Mnacho Echenim contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Logic in Computer ScienceMethodologyq-fin.PR

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 19 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
5works
0followers
3topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

5 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

A Proof Procedure For Separation Logic With Inductive Definitions and Theory Reasoning

A proof procedure, in the spirit of the sequent calculus, is proposed to check the validity of entailments between Separation Logic formulas combining inductively defined predicates denoted structures of bounded tree width and theory reasoning. The calculus is sound and complete, in the sense that a sequent is valid iff it admits a (possibly infinite) proof tree. We show that the procedure terminates in the two following cases: (i) When the inductive rules that define the predicates occurring on the left-hand side of the entailment terminate, in which case the proof tree is always finite. (ii) When the theory is empty, in which case every valid sequent admits a rational proof tree, where the total number of pairwise distinct sequents occurring in the proof tree is doubly exponential w.r.t.\ the size of the end-sequent.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Two Results on Separation Logic With Theory Reasoning

Two results are presented concerning the entailment problem in Separation Logic with inductively defined predicate symbols and theory reasoning. First, we show that the entailment problem is undecidable for rules with bounded tree-width, if theory reasoning is considered. The result holds for a wide class of theories, even with a very low expressive power. For instance it applies to the natural numbers with the successor function, or with the usual order. Second, we show that every entailment problem can be reduced to an entailment problem containing no equality (neither in the formulas nor in the recursive rules defining the semantics of the predicate symbols).

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Unbiasing and robustifying implied volatility calibration in a cryptocurrency market with large bid-ask spreads and missing quotes

We design a novel calibration procedure that is designed to handle the specific characteristics of options on cryptocurrency markets, namely large bid-ask spreads and the possibility of missing or incoherent prices in the considered data sets. We show that this calibration procedure is significantly more robust and accurate than the standard one based on trade and mid-prices.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Unifying Decidable Entailments in Separation Logic with Inductive Definitions

The entailment problem $φ\models ψ$ in Separation Logic \cite{IshtiaqOHearn01,Reynolds02}, between separated conjunctions of equational ($x \iseq y$ and $x \not\iseq y$), spatial ($x \mapsto (y_1,\ldots,y_\rank)$) and predicate ($p(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$) atoms, interpreted by a finite set of inductive rules, is undecidable in general. Certain restrictions on the set of inductive definitions lead to decidable classes of entailment problems. Currently, there are two such decidable classes, based on two restrictions, called \emph{establishment} \cite{IosifRogalewiczSimacek13,KatelaanMathejaZuleger19,PZ20} and \emph{restrictedness} \cite{EIP21a}, respectively. Both classes are shown to be in \twoexptime\ by the independent proofs from \cite{PZ20} and \cite{EIP21a}, respectively, and a many-one reduction of established to restricted entailment problems has been given \cite{EIP21a}. In this paper, we strictly generalize the restricted class, by distinguishing the conditions that apply only to the left- ($φ$) and the right- ($ψ$) hand side of entailments, respectively. We provide a many-one reduction of this generalized class, called \emph{safe}, to the established class. Together with the reduction of established to restricted entailment problems, this new reduction closes the loop and shows that the three classes of entailment problems (respectively established, restricted and safe) form a single, unified, \twoexptime-complete class.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Entailment Checking in Separation Logic with Inductive Definitions is 2-EXPTIME hard

The entailment between separation logic formulae with inductive predicates, also known as symbolic heaps, has been shown to be decidable for a large class of inductive definitions. Recently, a 2-EXPTIME algorithm was proposed and an EXPTIME-hard bound was established; however no precise lower bound is known. In this paper, we show that deciding entailment between predicate atoms is 2-EXPTIME-hard. The proof is based on a reduction from the membership problem for exponential-space bounded alternating Turing machines.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access