EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Dalia Abo Sheasha
dblp:116/6639
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2012
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1
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
1 paper |
Requirements engineering and software design · 50% Program verification · 50% | |
| Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper |
Bioinformatics and computational biology · 100% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Requirements engineering and software design
goal-oriented requirements engineering |
0.1 | 1 | 2012 | Engineering and verifying requirements for programmable self-assembling nanomachines · ICSE 2012 |
Program verification › model checking
probabilistic model checking |
0.1 | 1 | 2012 | Engineering and verifying requirements for programmable self-assembling nanomachines · ICSE 2012 |
Bioinformatics and computational biology
DNA nanotechnology |
0.0 | 1 | 2012 | Engineering and verifying requirements for programmable self-assembling nanomachines · ICSE 2012 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
probabilistic model checking · 0.3goal-oriented requirements engineering · 0.3
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2012 | Engineering and verifying requirements for programmable self-assembling nanomachinesabstractWe propose an extension of van Lamsweerde's goal-oriented requirements engineering to the domain of programmable DNA nanotechnology. This is a domain in which individual devices (agents) are at most a few dozen nanometers in diameter. These devices are programmed to assemble themselves from molecular components and perform their assigned tasks. The devices carry out their tasks in the probabilistic world of chemical kinetics, so they are individually error-prone. However, the number of devices deployed is roughly on the order of a nanomole (a 6 followed by fourteen 0s), and some goals are achieved when enough of these agents achieve their assigned subgoals. We show that it is useful in this setting to augment the AND/OR goal diagrams to allow goal refinements that are mediated by threshold functions, rather than ANDs or ORs. We illustrate this method by engineering requirements for a system of molecular detectors (DNA origami “pliers” that capture target molecules) invented by Kuzuya, Sakai, Yamazaki, Xu, and Komiyama (2011). We model this system in the Prism probabilistic symbolic model checker, and we use Prism to verify that requirements are satisfied, provided that the ratio of target molecules to detectors is neither too high nor too low. This gives prima facie evidence that software engineering methods can be used to make DNA nanotechnology more productive, predictable and safe. Robyn R. Lutz, Jack H. Lutz, James I. Lathrop, Titus H. Klinge, Eric R. Henderson, Divita Mathur, Dalia Abo Sheasha |
ICSE | 7 |