  Multithreaded programs generally leverage efficient and thread-safe
concurrent objects like sets, key-value maps, and queues. While some
concurrent-object operations are designed to behave atomically, each witnessing
the atomic effects of predecessors in a linearization order, others forego such
strong consistency to avoid complex control and synchronization bottlenecks.
For example, contains (value) methods of key-value maps may iterate through
key-value entries without blocking concurrent updates, to avoid unwanted
performance bottlenecks, and consequently overlook the effects of some
linearization-order predecessors. While such weakly-consistent operations may
not be atomic, they still offer guarantees, e.g., only observing values that
have been present.
  In this work we develop a methodology for proving that concurrent object
implementations adhere to weak-consistency specifications. In particular, we
consider (forward) simulation-based proofs of implementations against
relaxed-visibility specifications, which allow designated operations to
overlook some of their linearization-order predecessors, i.e., behaving as if
they never occurred. Besides annotating implementation code to identify
linearization points, i.e., points at which operations' logical effects occur,
we also annotate code to identify visible operations, i.e., operations whose
effects are observed; in practice this annotation can be done automatically by
tracking the writers to each accessed memory location. We formalize our
methodology over a general notion of transition systems, agnostic to any
particular programming language or memory model, and demonstrate its
application, using automated theorem provers, by verifying models of Java
concurrent object implementations.
