Talk:Ofer Strichman

.

Untitled

I would like to make three changes:

1. Remove the “Selected patents” section

2. Add a link to his Google scholar page in the “External links” section

3. Create a new “Research” section and add the following text:

Prof. Strichman's main research areas are formal verification and computational logic. He is best known for his invention, with Benny Godlin, of ‘regression verification’, a technique for proving the equivalence of recursive programs, and for various decision procedures (mostly for equalities with uninterpreted functions). In the field of propositional satifiability (SAT), he is mostly known for his works on linear-time proof manipulations and on incremental satisfiability. Several of his published model-checking algorithms were integrated into commercial verification tools by EDA companies.

Prof. Strichman co-authored over 100 peer-reviewed articles (mostly in the fields of formal verification and propositional satisfiability), published two books, and edited several others.--Adig-pt (talk) 13:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

References

@Adig-pt: This is the longest sitting connected edit request. I think you're seeing reluctance from the other volunteers to help because the sources don't substantiate the text you are proposing. If you say he is best known for something, you have to have an independent source that confirms that statement, rather than simply adding a link to his paper on the subject. That's known as WP:OR. Also, I don't see anything about the algorithms being integrated. And what is the rationale for removing the patents info? Lastly, I added his Google Scholar info to the external links section. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Tim for the detailed and helpful answer. I'll consult with prof. Strichman to see what we can do to substantiate the claims. Regarding the patents: this was requested after a talk with Scoop creep: User talk:Scope creep/Archive 10#Ofer Strichman Adig-pt (talk) 07:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Adig-pt: I'm going to disagree with Scope Creep. Numerous patents IMO are a sign of notability. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I did a little more reading and found this. Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Are patents reliable sources?. It suggests that patents are unverified and therefore shouldn't be quoted as facts, but it doesn't speak to whether their existence is notable or not. The article does say that their inclusion can be considered puffery, so that may be Scope Creep's concern. I don't see it that way but there are always different schools of thought here. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Chiming in to note that I just removed the patents section. I don't think inclusion of patents is warranted unless perhaps in very specific cases where patents are covered by other sources as significant in themselves. As highly technical documents, their inclusion is of questionable use to a lay reader, even compared to more dense peer reviewed scientific literature.

I also added the Authority Control template, updated to include Strichman's ORCID and Google Scholar ID. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 20:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Tim and Whiny. Here is a new version of the request edit: the research section that I would like to add (I've added at the end a mention and a ref to his patents at Google patents. Seems to me like a good solution).

== Research ==

Prof. Strichman's main research areas are formal verification and computational logic. He is best known for his invention, with Benny Godlin, of ‘regression verification’, a technique for proving the equivalence of recursive programs, and for various decision procedures (mostly for equalities with uninterpreted functions).

In the field of propositional satifiability (SAT), his works include linear-time proof manipulations and incremental satisfiability.

Prof. Strichman co-authored over 100 peer-reviewed articles (mostly in the fields of formal verification and propositional satisfiability), published two books,  and edited several others. He also holds 2 patents. Adig-pt (talk) 08:48, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: The requested ref #4 is a re-use of the Resume ref (#3 at the original article)--Adig-pt (talk) 09:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@Adig-pt: I can't read the first source, so I'm still not seeing validation of the "best known for" phrase. Based on what I can read, you might try

Prof. Strichman's main research areas are formal verification and computational logic. He, along with fellow Israeli scientist Benny Godlin, is know for coining the term ‘regression verification’ to describe a technique for proving the equivalence of recursive programs, and for developing various decision procedures (mostly for equalities with uninterpreted functions).

The rest looks fine.TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Tim, the first source also states that Strichman and Godlin coined the term ‘regression verification’ and explains its implications. So I think that we can go ahead with the first paragraph you suggested, followed by the rest. 5.29.212.73 (talk) 17:57, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Timtempleton: There is no patents information on Wikipedia or descriptions of patents attributed to individuals, so don't put them in. You'll not find them in any article. So please don't put them in, or I'll need to remove them. scope_creep^Talk 07:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

References

@Scope creep: That's actually incorrect. You're confusing reliable with useful. WP:PATENTS lists three examples of when it is considered alright to mention patents in people's articles. Here's the direct text:

They are reliable as a citation to the existence of an invention and its date (e.g., "A patent was issued to Alice Expert on May 5, 2010...").
They are reliable for attributed statements about their contents (e.g., "According to five-year-old inventor Steven Olson in his application for US Patent #6,368,227, issued in 2002, he invented swinging sideways because swinging back and forth might get boring.")
A patent will also contain a section referencing previous literature, which may be a good source to search for other citations.

TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Timtempleton: That is a essay and not a policy, even then you could probably safely ignore it, if the content was backed by secondary sources. The core is patents; they are written by the person involved in their invention, making them primary in all cases, and there is often very little written about them that you can use to base secondary sources on them, unless they are really known well, for example the bulb or the carburetor. Hence the reason that you never see patents anywhere on any biographies, that you care look at, except for specific individuals who fundamentally changed the whole world. When you look at the inventor of the carburetor, you see a small listing of patents, but as device its so ubiquitous, that the coverage is overwhelming, so its acceptable. However, if the sources are attributes to a small group of academics based around the subject, they will still primary and I will need to remove them. scope_creep^Talk 17:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@Scope creep: Essays are often useful to flesh things out, but can you show me the policy that says to not use patents as sources in articles? That would be helpful for me, since I thought that if we call someone an inventor, we could validate that by showing their patent activity. It's not trivial to file for a patent, let alone get one - I've seen the process firsthand. Thx! TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 04:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done @Adig-pt: Authority control has been added to address the Google Scholar link, the patent section was removed (although I'm still waiting for the policy that says to remove it) and I added a more subdued research section to more closely mirror the sources. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Adig-pt (talk) 04:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)