Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Narjes Jomaa

dblp:184/4500 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
2as first author
1since 2021 · last 2024
0009-0003-9694-1242ORCID · corroborated

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 3 · 2 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
1 paper
Program verification · 77% Software maintenance and evolution · 23%

Topics — the 1 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Program verification › proof assistants
proof engineering
0.812024
Code to Qed, the Project Manager's Guide to Proof Engineering · ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 2024

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

proof structuring · 0.8proof strategies · 0.8proof planning · 0.8proof metrics · 0.8
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2024 Code to Qed, the Project Manager's Guide to Proof Engineering
abstract
Despite growing efforts and encouraging successes in recent decades, fully formally verified projects are still rare in the industrial landscape. The industry often lacks the tools and methodologies to efficiently scale the proof development process. In this work, we give a comprehensible overview of the proof development process for proof developers and project managers. The goal is to support proof developers by rationalizing the proof development process, which currently relies heavily on their intuition and expertise, and by facilitating communication with the management line. To this end, we concentrate on the aspect of proof manufacturing and highlight the most significant sources of proof effort. We propose means to mitigate the latter through proof practices (proof structuring, proof strategies, and proof planning), proof metrics, and tools. Our approach is project-agnostic, independent of specific proof expertise, and computed estimations do not assume prior similar developments. We evaluate our guidelines using a separation kernel undergoing formal verification, driving the proof process in an optimised way. Feedback from a project manager unfamiliar with proof development confirms the benefits of detailed planning of the proof development steps, clear progress communication to the hierarchy line, and alignment with established practices in the software industry.
Nicolas Dejon, Chrystel Gaber, Gilles Grimaud, Narjes Jomaa
ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol.4
2018 Formal proof of dynamic memory isolation based on MMU
Narjes Jomaa, David Nowak, Gilles Grimaud, Samuel Hym
Sci. Comput. Program.1
2016 Formal Proof of Dynamic Memory Isolation Based on MMU
abstract
For security and safety reasons, it is essential to ensure memory isolation between processes. The memory manager is thus a critical part of the kernel of an operating system. It is common for kernels to ensure memory isolation through a piece of hardware called memory management unit (MMU). However an MMU by itself does not provide memory isolation. It is only a tool the kernel can use to ensure this property. In this paper we show how a proof assistant such as Coq can be used to model a hardware architecture with an MMU, and an abstract model of microkernel supporting preemptive scheduling and memory manager. We proceed by making formally explicit the consistency properties that must be preserved in order for memory isolation to be preserved.
Narjes Jomaa, David Nowak, Gilles Grimaud, Samuel Hym
TASE1