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.

Zi Pong Lim

dblp:405/3416 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
1as first author
2since 2021 · last 2026
0009-0009-5667-4227ORCID · reported

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 since 2021Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021Theory of computation · 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.

Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Vision and language · 50% Efficient and distributed learning · 50%
Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Requirements engineering and software design · 100%
Theoretical computer science
1 paper
Automated reasoning and model checking · 100%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Computer vision › Vision and language › vision-language model › multimodal large language model
chart understanding
1.012026
Learning More from Less: Exploiting Counterfactuals for Data-Efficient Chart Understanding · ACL (1) 2026
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning
data-efficient learning
1.012026
Learning More from Less: Exploiting Counterfactuals for Data-Efficient Chart Understanding · ACL (1) 2026
Requirements engineering and software design
requirements verification
1.012026
Shift-Left Requirements Verification: Integrating LLMs and Formal Methods for Automotive Systems · FM (2) 2026
Automated reasoning and model checking › abstraction refinement
counterexample-guided abstraction refinement
0.312026
Shift-Left Requirements Verification: Integrating LLMs and Formal Methods for Automotive Systems · FM (2) 2026
Automated reasoning and model checking
model checking
0.312026
Shift-Left Requirements Verification: Integrating LLMs and Formal Methods for Automotive Systems · FM (2) 2026

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

large language model · 2.0formal methods · 2.0FDR4 model checker · 2.0CSP · 2.0multimodal learning · 1.0counterfactual data augmentation · 1.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2026 Learning More from Less: Exploiting Counterfactuals for Data-Efficient Chart Understanding
abstract
Jianzhu Bao, Haozhen Zhang, Kuicai Dong, Bozhi Wu, Sarthak Ketanbhai Modi, Zi Pong Lim, Yon Shin Teo, Wenya Wang. Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2026.
Jianzhu Bao, Haozhen Zhang, Kuicai Dong, Bozhi Wu, Sarthak Ketanbhai Modi, Zi Pong Lim, Yon Shin Teo, Wenya Wang 0001
ACL (1)6
2026 Shift-Left Requirements Verification: Integrating LLMs and Formal Methods for Automotive Systems
abstract
Abstract Requirement defects are a major source of late-stage failures in automotive systems, yet rigorous validation is rarely applied during early development. While formal methods offer strong guarantees, their adoption at the requirements level is limited by high formalization cost and expertise barriers. We present an industry-oriented, shift-left verification approach that integrates Large Language Models (LLMs) with formal methods to enable requirements-level validation. Requirements are classified and decomposed by LLMs, translated into CSP system models and assertions, and refined through a CEGAR-inspired loop using the FDR4 model checker. Validation is decomposed into requirement–assertion pairs supported by natural-language back-translations and confidence scores, preserving expert control without manual formal modeling. Domain knowledge–based validation further leverages historical defect data to identify implicit requirement gaps. We evaluate the approach on three real-world automotive case studies. Results show high automation for small-to-medium systems (80–100% synthesis success for up to $$\sim 60$$ ∼ 60 requirements), effective expert validation guided by LLM confidence estimates, and 100% detection of known historical defects alongside 22 novel gaps. The workflow completes within 10–35 min per project at negligible cost ( $$<8$$ < 8 per project), with limited expert effort. Our results demonstrate that LLM+formal method hybridization can provide scalable, rigorous, and industrially viable requirements-level verification, supporting practical shift-left adoption in automotive systems.
Zi Pong Lim, Bozhi Wu, Yon Shin Teo, Shangwei Lin 0001, Yi Li 0008
FM (2)1