Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Balaji Balasubramaniam
dblp:145/7900
· DBLP profile ↗
3ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2024
0009-0004-8208-0784ORCID · corroborated
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 2Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
2 papers |
Requirements engineering and software design · 100% | |
| Network and information security
1 paper |
Usable security · 100% |
Topics — the 5 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Requirements engineering and software design
requirements elicitation |
0.2 | 1 | 2016 | Probing for requirements knowledge to stimulate architectural thinking · ICSE 2016 |
Usable security › organizational security
security compliance |
0.2 | 1 | 2015 | Towards automating the security compliance value chain · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2015 |
Requirements engineering and software design › software architecture › architectural design
architectural decision making |
0.1 | 1 | 2016 | Probing for requirements knowledge to stimulate architectural thinking · ICSE 2016 |
Requirements engineering and software design
software architecture |
0.1 | 1 | 2016 | Probing for requirements knowledge to stimulate architectural thinking · ICSE 2016 |
Requirements engineering and software design
requirements traceability |
0.1 | 1 | 2015 | Towards automating the security compliance value chain · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2015 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
machine learning · 0.2
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | Carving Out Control Code: Automated Identification of Control Software in Autopilot SystemsabstractCyber-physical systems interact with the world through software controlling physical effectors. Carefully designed controllers, implemented as safety-critical control software, also interact with other parts of the software suite, and may be difficult to separate, verify, or maintain. Moreover, some software changes, not intended to impact control system performance, do change controller response through a variety of means including interaction with external libraries or unmodeled changes only existing in the cyber system (e.g., exception handling). As a result, identifying safety-critical control software, its boundaries with other embedded software in the system, and the way in which control software evolves could help developers isolate, test, and verify control implementation, and improve control software development. In this work we present an automated technique, based on a novel application of machine learning, to detect commits related to control software, its changes, and how the control software evolves. We leverage messages from developers (e.g., commit comments), and code changes themselves to understand how control software is refined, extended, and adapted over time. We examine three distinct, popular, real-world, safety-critical autopilots—ArduPilot, Paparazzi UAV, and LibrePilot to test our method demonstrating an effective detection rate of 0.95 for control-related code changes. Balaji Balasubramaniam, Iftekhar Ahmed 0001, Hamid Bagheri, Justin M. Bradley |
ACM Trans. Cyber Phys. Syst. | 1 |
| 2016 | Probing for requirements knowledge to stimulate architectural thinkingabstractSoftware requirements specifications (SRSs) often lack the detail needed to make informed architectural decisions. Architects therefore either make assumptions, which can lead to incorrect decisions, or conduct additional stakeholder interviews, resulting in potential project delays. We previously observed that software architects ask Probing Questions (PQs) to gather information crucial to architectural decision-making. Our goal is to equip Business Analysts with appropriate PQs so that they can ask these questions themselves. We report a new study with over 40 experienced architects to identify reusable PQs for five areas of functionality and organize them into structured flows. These PQ-flows can be used by Business Analysts to elicit and specify architecturally relevant information. Additionally, we leverage machine learning techniques to determine when a PQ-flow is appropriate for use in a project, and to annotate individual PQs with relevant information extracted from the existing SRS. We trained and evaluated our approach on over 8,000 individual requirements from 114 requirements specifications and also conducted a pilot study to validate its usefulness. Preethu Rose Anish, Balaji Balasubramaniam, Abhishek Sainani, Jane Cleland-Huang, Maya Daneva, Roel J. Wieringa, Smita Ghaisas |
ICSE | 2 |
| 2015 | Towards automating the security compliance value chainabstractInformation security is of paramount importance in this digital era. While businesses strive to adopt industry-accepted system-hardening standards such as benchmarks recommended by the Center for Internet Security (CIS) to combat threats, they are confronted with an additional challenge of ever-evolving regulations that address security concerns. These create additional requirements, which must be incorporated into software systems. In this paper, we present a generic approach towards automating different activities of the Security Compliance Value Chain (SCVC) in organizations. We discuss the approach in the context of the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI-DSS) regulations. Specifically, we present automation of (1) interpretation of PCI-DSS regulations to infer system requirements, (2) traceability of the inferred system requirements to CIS security controls (3) implementation of appropriate security controls, and finally, (4) verification and reporting of compliance. Smita Ghaisas, Manish Motwani, Balaji Balasubramaniam, Anjali Gajendragadkar, Rahul Kelkar, Harrick M. Vin |
ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE | 3 |