Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Madhav Jivrajani
dblp:387/8077
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2025
0009-0000-9170-6524ORCID · reported
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Systems, architecture and hardware · 1 · 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
1 paper |
Distributed systems · 100% | |
| Theoretical computer science
1 paper |
Automated reasoning and model checking · 100% | |
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper |
Software testing · 100% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Distributed systems
consensus |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Multi-Grained Specifications for Distributed System Model Checking and Verification · EuroSys 2025 |
Automated reasoning and model checking
model checking |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Multi-Grained Specifications for Distributed System Model Checking and Verification · EuroSys 2025 |
Software testing › protocol testing
conformance checking |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Multi-Grained Specifications for Distributed System Model Checking and Verification · EuroSys 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
TLC model checker · 2.6TLA+ · 2.6
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Multi-Grained Specifications for Distributed System Model Checking and VerificationabstractThis paper presents our experience specifying and verifying the correctness of ZooKeeper, a complex and evolving distributed coordination system. We use TLA+ to model finegrained behaviors of ZooKeeper and use the TLC model checker to verify its correctness properties; we also check conformance between the model and code. The fundamental challenge is to balance the granularity of specifications and the scalability of model checking---fine-grained specifications lead to state-space explosion, while coarse-grained specifications introduce model-code gaps. To address this challenge, we write specifications with different granularities for composable modules, and compose them into mixed-grained specifications based on specific scenarios. For example, to verify code changes, we compose fine-grained specifications of changed modules and coarse-grained specifications that abstract away details of unchanged code with preserved interactions. We show that writing multi-grained specifications is a viable practice and can cope with model-code gaps without untenable state space, especially for evolving software where changes are typically local and incremental. We detected six severe bugs that violate five types of invariants and verified their code fixes; the fixes have been merged to ZooKeeper. We also improve the protocol design to make it easy to implement correctly. Lingzhi Ouyang, Xudong Sun 0013, Ruize Tang, Yu Huang 0002, Madhav Jivrajani, Xiaoxing Ma, Tianyin Xu |
EuroSys | 5 |