perm filename DCL2.75[LET,JMC] blob sn#183847 filedate 1975-10-28 generic text, type C, neo UTF8
COMMENT āŠ—   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	.DEVICE XGP
C00010 ENDMK
CāŠ—;
.DEVICE XGP;
.FONT 1 "BASL30"; TURN ON "%";
.SELECT 1
.BEGIN VERBATIM
Letter in Support of
Recommendation for Appointment to the Faculty
David C. Luckham, Adjunct Professor
.END
.SKIP 2
As required by the Procedures for Recommending Appointments,
Reappointments, and Promotions in the Stanford Faculty,the
enclosed documents - Summary of Experience Record, Letters of
Recommendation, and Comments on the Publications of D.C. Luckham -
provide the largest part of the information requested.The following
comments complete the dossier.

I. Area of work

   Dr. Luckham came to Stanford as a Research Associate in Computer
Science in 1968 and then went to UCLA as Associate Professor of
Computer Science in 1971. His reason for returning to Stanford, and 
accepting what amounts to a demotion in rank, was the superior
research environment of the Stanford Artificial Intelligence Labora-
tory both in terms of facilities and in the quality of students with 
whom he could work.

   While here he has continued his research in automatic theorem 
proving and mathematical theory of computation and started a new
effort in automatic programming.

   If his promotion to Adjunct Professor is approved, he will con-
tinue his personal research activity and will play a still more
activee role in the supervision of graduate students since he will
be able to serve as a principal dissertation adviser. He will also
be able to apply for research support in his ow name as principal
investigator, and this will relieve the Director from having to
serve as formal principal investigator in some cases and will enable 
Luckham's part of the Laboratory's work to stand on its own feet.


II. Justification of Promotion

    The primary justification fir promoting David Luckham to Adjunct
Professor is the quality and quantity of his continuing scientific
work. His early work in program schemas has stood the test of time 
and is still referred to quite often. He continues in a leading po-
sition in automatic theorem proving and is almost alone in success-
fully applying automatic theorem proving to actual mathematical prob-
lems, albeit in a limited domain of mathematics for which the present
methods are suitable. Recently he has started new efforts in develop-
ing systems for proving assertions about computer programs incorpor-
ating his previous programs for automatic theorem proving. In this,
he is occupying a leading postion in what has become a very competitive
field.

    Most recently he has started an effort in automatice programming,
i.e., generating computer programs automatically from specifications
of the desired performance. There is a substantial probability of
this work obtaining independent support if we promote him to Adjunct
Professor.


III. The Candidate's Role

     With reference to the above (which is listed as IV. in the pro-
cedures),the following is in response to Paragraphs A. through C.;
Paragraph D. is covered in thh Summary of Experience Record.
                                                                      
      Since September 1971, David Luckham as been a Research Computer
Scientist in the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. He has been the
instigator and leader of all our work in computer theorem proving
and much of our work in program verification. Both of these areas
are essential for artificial intelligence research and for mathe-
matical theory of computation and, as shown by the letters, David
Luckham has contributed strongly to the Laboratory's international
reputation in these areas and presumably to the continuation of our
government support.Besides this, his area has attracted quite a few
graduate students whose dissertation work he has ably directed.
His ability to conceive and organize independent research projects
that can attract government support has been demonstrated and it is
regarded as anomalous that he does not yet have a title allowing him
to be a principal investigator.

    We expect him to be successful in the future, because he has
already been successful in this role. However, his status must match
his role if we are to be fair or are to keep him.

    His departmental activities outside his research are listed.

    While his position is not primarily as a teacher, we expect
that he will occasionally teach an advanced course and direct
seminars. He does this adequately.

    While this is primarily a matter of making the title match
the function, the candidate is already performing. The letters
soliciting opinions asked for comparison with other outstanding
people in the field with the excellent results evidenced in the
letters.