Marco Carbone has a PhD position at the IT University Copenhagen in the PROBABILIST project (PROBABILIstic Session Types), funded by the Independent Research Fund Denmark (DFF-FNU) starting in August or soon thereafter. The project is in cooperation with Nobuko Yoshida at the University of Oxford.
See here for details and encourage suitable students to apply for this exciting PhD position. Spread the news!Process Algebra Diary
Papers I find interesting---mostly, but not solely, in Process Algebra---, and some fun stuff in Mathematics and Computer Science at large and on general issues related to research, teaching and academic life.
Monday, May 05, 2025
Tuesday, April 22, 2025
Answers to four teaching-related questions from Teaching Affairs at Reykjavik University
Wednesday, April 16, 2025
Call for papers - GandALF 2025
If you do research on any of the topics covered by GandALF, do consider submitting a paper to the conference and making the trip to Malta in mid-September!
Tuesday, April 15, 2025
What's your opinion on double-blind reviewing in TCS conferences?
Recent discussions with some colleagues spurred me to read again Ran Canetti's white paper on double-blind reviewing in IACR conferences. I also went back to a post by Boaz Barak and to its discussion thread, as well as to this post that motivated it. I was also reminded of the coverage of single- and double-blind reviewing in this chapter of the book "The Science of Science" (see, for instance, page 25 in that file). I recommend all those resources.
FWIW, I share Ran Canetti's analysis of the pros and cons of double-blind reviewing. At the end of the day, evaluating scientific papers submitted to conferences and journals is largely a subjective exercise. IMHO, this is especially true for conferences where, apart from a number of clear accepts and clear rejects, a PC typically has to choose a small number of papers from a typically much larger pool of "scientifically equivalent" articles.
Double-blind reviewing and rebuttals are two ways in which our community tries to make the process of selecting a good programme for a conference---which is, after all, the job description of a conference PC---more objective than it really is. However, I keep wondering whether those steps make a difference, especially in addressing bias, in an age where every scientific contribution should be available online in publicly accessible form before it is submitted to a conference. Shouldn't we simply trust the PC chairs of a conference to make sure that the refereeing process and the PC discussion are as thorough as possible, given the time constraints under which they take place?
What's your opinion on double-blind reviewing as authors, PC members and PC chairs, especially in conferences in TCS, broadly construed? Do you prefer to submit to conferences that implement double-blind reviewing? If so, why?
I'd be grateful if you could post your opinions as comments to this post.
Tuesday, April 01, 2025
ICE-TCS seminar by Benjamin Moore on "Smoothed analysis for graph isomorphism"
Today, the ICE-TCS seminar series at Reykjavik University hosted a talk by Benjamin Moore (Institute of Science and Technology Austria) who is visiting our postdoctoral researcher Nicolaos Matsakis.
Benjamin presented the main results in his paper "Smoothed analysis for graph isomorphism", coauthored with his ISTA colleagues Michael Anastos and Matthew Kwan. (In passing, I just saw that Matthew Kwan received the main prize of the Austrian Mathematical Society last year. Congratulations!)
To my mind, Benjamin did an excellent job in presenting the context for their exciting (but very technical) contribution and the main ideas that underlie it. Kudos! The work by Benjamin and his collaborators provides another explanation of the effectiveness of the colour refinement algorithm (also known as the one-dimensional Weisfeiler-Leman algorithm) in checking whether two graphs are isomorphic. I encourage you to read at least the introduction of their paper, which will be presented at STOC 2025, and the ISTA news article here, which does a much better job at putting their work in context than an interested, but ignorant, observer like me ever could. FWIW, I find results like theirs, which offer some explanation as to why theoretically hard problems are seemingly easy in practice, fascinating and I feel like that paper might be a strong candidate for a best paper award.
It was also fitting to see recent work on smoothed analysis being presented at our seminar series since Daniel Spielman and Shang-Hua Teng received the 2008 Gödel Prize at ICALP 2008, which was held at Reykjavik University. Time flies, but great work is timeless.
Sunday, March 16, 2025
Interview with Magnús Már Halldórsson on Reykjavik University's website
Magnús Már Halldórsson, the director of ICE-TCS, was interviewed by the Communication Department at Reykjavik University to mark the 20th anniversary of ICE-TCS on April 29, 2025. The interview appeared last Friday on the Reykjavik University web site. In my biased opinion, Magnús hit all the right notes. I hope that some of our students and colleagues, as well as the staff at Icelandic funding agencies and politicians, read it.
I am also pleased to see theoretical computer science at the Department of Computer Science at Reykjavik University get some visibility on the university's website after twenty years. It leave the job of determining the level of contribution and the visibility ICE-TCS has given to the department and to computer science research in Iceland to others.In case anyone is interested in having a look at them, our annual reports from June 2007 till the whole of 2024 are available here. (Thanks to Tarmo Uustalu for reviving the centre's website and for keeping up to data!)
Sunday, February 09, 2025
Dagstuhl Publishing – Highlights of 2024
On behalf of Dagstuhl Publishing, Michael Wagner has posted the highlights for 2024. IMHO, the computer-science research community owes the team at Dagstuhl Publishing and Schloss Dagstuhl a lot for its sustained support of research and open-access publication activities. I encourage any readers I might have to read the highlights for 2024 and share them within their networks. This is the least we can do to thank everyone at Dagsthul for their work.
If you are a PC chair or an SC member of a high-quality conference that publishes its proceedings with a commercial publisher, and you care about open-access publication of research results and artefacts, consider suggesting that your conference apply for publishing its proceedings in LIPIcs.
Last, but not least, consider submitting some of your best work to the journal Transaction on Graph Data and Knowledge, if it is in the areas covered by that diamond-open-access journal!