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.

Kimaya Bedarkar

dblp:336/3777 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
2as first author
2since 2021 · last 2025
0009-0003-1794-6548ORCID · corroborated

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021Applied, 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.

Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
2 papers
Embedded and real-time systems · 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
1.422025
RefinedProsa: Connecting Response-Time Analysis with C Verification for Interrupt-Free Schedulers · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2025
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
response time analysis
1.422025
RefinedProsa: Connecting Response-Time Analysis with C Verification for Interrupt-Free Schedulers · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2025
From Intuition to Coq: A Case Study in Verified Response-Time Analysis 1 of FIFO Scheduling · RTSS 2022
Program verification › code-level verification
c program verification
0.912025
RefinedProsa: Connecting Response-Time Analysis with C Verification for Interrupt-Free Schedulers · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2025
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

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

response time analysis · 1.7foundational c verification · 1.7formal verification · 1.1coq proof assistant · 1.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 RefinedProsa: Connecting Response-Time Analysis with C Verification for Interrupt-Free Schedulers
abstract
There has been a recent upsurge of interest in formal, machine-checked verification of timing guarantees for C implementations of real-time system schedulers. However, prior work has only considered tick-based schedulers, which enjoy a clearly defined notion of time: the time “quantum”. In this work, we present a new approach to real-time systems verification for interrupt-free schedulers , which are commonly used in deeply embedded and resource-constrained systems but which do not enjoy a natural notion of periodic time. Our approach builds on and connects two recently developed Rocq-based systems—RefinedC (for foundational C verification) and Prosa (for verified response-time analysis)—adapting the former to reason about timed traces and the latter to reason about overheads. We apply the resulting system, which we call RefinedProsa , to verify Rössl, a simple yet representative, fixed-priority, non-preemptive, interrupt-free scheduler implemented in C.
Kimaya Bedarkar, Laila Elbeheiry, Michael Sammler, Lennard Gäher, Björn B. Brandenburg, Derek Dreyer, Deepak Garg 0001
Proc. ACM Program. Lang.1
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
RTSS1