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

Karthik Nukala

dblp:382/0854 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
0as first author
3since 2021 · last 2026
—ORCID · none

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 3 · 3 since 2021Theory of computation · 2 · 2 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 · 100%
Network and information security
1 paper
Blockchain and cryptocurrency security · 100%
Theoretical computer science
1 paper
Automated reasoning and model checking · 100%
Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
1 paper
Electronic design automation · 100%

Topics — the 6 heaviest of 8, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Automated reasoning and model checking › model checking
symbolic model checking
0.812024
The MoXI Model Exchange Tool Suite · CAV (1) 2024
Program verification
model checking
0.312026
Show Me The Money: An Exercise in Proof-Driven Software Understanding · CAV (3) 2026
Program verification
proof assistants
0.312026
Show Me The Money: An Exercise in Proof-Driven Software Understanding · CAV (3) 2026
Program verification › model checking
software model checking
0.312026
Show Me The Money: An Exercise in Proof-Driven Software Understanding · CAV (3) 2026
Program verification
theorem proving
0.312026
Show Me The Money: An Exercise in Proof-Driven Software Understanding · CAV (3) 2026
Electronic design automation › hardware verification and test
hardware verification
0.212024
The MoXI Model Exchange Tool Suite · CAV (1) 2024

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

seahorn · 2.0large language model · 2.0PVS · 2.0model translation · 1.5SMT-LIB · 1.5
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2026 Show Me The Money: An Exercise in Proof-Driven Software Understanding
abstract
Abstract We present a case study on proof-driven software understanding of mature, security-critical infrastructure. While formal methods are traditionally applied during the design phase, we present our experience applying formal reasoning onto a mature industrial C++ codebase. We focus on a formal analysis of the core algorithm that implements the Stellar blockchain’s order book. By combining large language models (LLMs), Prototype Verification System (PVS), and Seahorn , we are able to prove core properties of the production codebase. Our approach also identified an inconsistency in documentation related to the reachability of an exception location. Most importantly, however, we produce artifacts that make it easy for code changes to be checked against established invariants. This work demonstrates how the strategic combination of theorem proving and model checking provides a path for delivering robust assurance to legacy systems.
Joseph Tafese, Karthik Nukala, Hassen Saïdi, Natarajan Shankar, Arie Gurfinkel, Giuliano Losa
CAV (3)2
2024 The MoXI Model Exchange Tool Suite
abstract
Abstract We release the first tool suite implementingMoXI(Model eXchange Interlingua), an intermediate language for symbolic model checking designed to be an international research-community standard and developed by a widespread collaboration under a National Science Foundation (NSF) CISE Community Research Infrastructure initiative. Although we focus here on hardware verification, theMoXIlanguage is useful for software model checking and verification of infinite-state systems in general.MoXIbuilds on elements of SMT-LIB 2; it is easy to add new theories and operators. Our contributions include: (1) introducing the first tool suite of automated translators into and out of the new model-checking intermediate language; (2) composing an initial example benchmark set enabling the model-checking research community to build future translations; (3) compiling details for utilizing, extending, and improving upon our tool suite, including usage characteristics and initial performance data. Experimental evaluations demonstrate that compiling SMV-language models throughMoXIto perform symbolic model checking with the tools from the last Hardware Model Checking Competition performs competitively with model checking directly vianuXmv.
Christopher Johannsen, Karthik Nukala, Rohit Dureja, Ahmed Irfan, Natarajan Shankar, Cesare Tinelli, Moshe Y. Vardi, Kristin Y. Rozier
CAV (1)2
2024 MoXI: An Intermediate Language for Symbolic Model Checking
Kristin Y. Rozier, Rohit Dureja, Ahmed Irfan, Christopher Johannsen, Karthik Nukala, Natarajan Shankar, Cesare Tinelli, Moshe Y. Vardi
SPIN5