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

Marco Maida

dblp:320/9762 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
5ranked-venue papers
3as first author
5since 2021 · last 2025
0009-0006-2951-1850ORCID · corroborated

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

Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 2 · 1 first-author · 2 since 2021Systems, architecture and hardware · 1 · 1 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 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.

Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
2 papers
Embedded and real-time systems · 100%
Computer graphics and multimedia
1 paper
Computational fabrication · 100%
Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
2 papers
Program verification · 100%

Topics — the 5 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Embedded and real-time systems
real-time scheduling
1.122022
From Intuition to Coq: A Case Study in Verified Response-Time Analysis 1 of FIFO Scheduling · RTSS 2022
Work-in-Progress: Automatically Generated Response-Time Proofs as Evidence of Timeliness · RTSS 2021
Embedded and real-time systems › real-time scheduling › schedulability analysis
response time analysis
1.122022
From Intuition to Coq: A Case Study in Verified Response-Time Analysis 1 of FIFO Scheduling · RTSS 2022
Work-in-Progress: Automatically Generated Response-Time Proofs as Evidence of Timeliness · RTSS 2021
Program verification › mechanized verification
proof assistant verification
0.612022
From Intuition to Coq: A Case Study in Verified Response-Time Analysis 1 of FIFO Scheduling · RTSS 2022
Embedded and real-time systems › real-time scheduling
schedulability analysis
0.212022
From Intuition to Coq: A Case Study in Verified Response-Time Analysis 1 of FIFO Scheduling · RTSS 2022
Program verification
proof generation
0.112021
Work-in-Progress: Automatically Generated Response-Time Proofs as Evidence of Timeliness · RTSS 2021

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

formal verification · 1.1coq proof assistant · 1.1topology tree encoding · 0.9real-time camera decoding · 0.9
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Claycode: Stylable and Deformable 2D Scannable Codes
abstract
This paper introduces Claycode, a novel 2D scannable code designed for extensive stylization and deformation. Unlike traditional matrix-based codes (e.g. , QR codes), Claycodes encode their message in a tree structure. During the encoding process, bits are mapped into a topology tree, which is then depicted as a nesting of color regions drawn within the boundaries of a target polygon shape. When decoding, Claycodes are extracted and interpreted in real-time from a camera stream. We detail the end-to-end pipeline and show that Claycodes allow for extensive stylization without compromising their functionality. We then empirically demonstrate Claycode's high tolerance to heavy deformations, outperforming traditional 2D scannable codes in scenarios where they typically fail.
Marco Maida, Alberto Crescini, Marco Perronet, Elena Camuffo
ACM Trans. Graph.1
2022 Foundational Response-Time Analysis as Explainable Evidence of Timeliness
Marco Maida, Sergey Bozhko, Björn B. Brandenburg
ECRTS1
2022 Work in Progress: Automatic Response-Time Analysis for Arbitrary Real-Time Linux Workloads
abstract
A recent survey of industry practices by Akesson et al. [1] indicates that the use of response-time analysis (RTA) is surprisingly limited. In particular, in response to Question 23 of Akesson et al.’s survey, the majority of respondents (61%) indicated that the presence of potential deadline violations is assessed by running tests and checking for overruns. In contrast, the use of in-house schedulability analyses or commercially-available schedulability tools is far less widespread (31% and 9%, respectively).
Marco Perronet, Marco Maida, Cédric Courtaud, Björn B. Brandenburg
RTAS2
2022 From Intuition to Coq: A Case Study in Verified Response-Time Analysis 1 of FIFO Scheduling
abstract
Response-time analysis (RTA) is a key technique for the analysis of (not only) safety-critical real-time systems. It is hence crucial for published RTAs to be safe (i.e., correct), but historically this has not always been the case. To ensure the trustworthiness of RTAs, recent work has pioneered the use of formal verification. The Prosa open-source project, in particular, relies on the Coq proof assistant to mechanically check all proofs. While highly effective at eradicating human error, such formalization and automatic validation of mathematical reasoning still faces barriers to more widespread adoption as most researchers active today are not yet accustomed to the use of proof assistants. To make this approach more broadly accessible, this paper presents a case study in the verification of a novel RTA for sporadic tasks under FIFO scheduling using the Coq proof assistant. The RTA is derived twice, first using traditional, intuition-based reasoning, and once more formally in a style that highlights the similarity to the intuitive argument. The verified RTA is of interest in itself: experiments with synthetic workloads based on an automotive benchmark show the new RTA to clearly outperform a prior RTA for FIFO scheduling. The paper further explores the performance of FIFO scheduling relative to traditional fixed-priority and earliest-deadline-first approaches, showing that FIFO scheduling can benefit lower-rate tasks.
Kimaya Bedarkar, Mariam Vardishvili, Sergey Bozhko, Marco Maida, Björn B. Brandenburg
RTSS4
2021 Work-in-Progress: Automatically Generated Response-Time Proofs as Evidence of Timeliness
abstract
The purpose of a response-time analysis (RTA) is to obtain safe bounds on the worst-case response times of all critical tasks in a real-time system. To this end, the system is described with a mathematical model (typically, comprising a workload model, a resource model, and a scheduling policy), which is then analyzed to derive response-time bounds. This procedure requires (i) a theory that rigorously justifies that the RTA correctly characterizes the worst-case scenario, and (ii) an RTA tool that executes the concrete calculations.
Marco Maida, Sergey Bozhko, Björn B. Brandenburg
RTSS1