Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Mehran Moeini Jam
dblp:441/9403
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2026
0009-0007-9208-0659ORCID · reported
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 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.
| Theoretical computer science
1 paper |
Automated reasoning and model checking · 100% | |
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper |
Program verification · 100% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Program verification › modular reasoning
rely-guarantee reasoning |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | Compositional Verification of Timed Automata via Violation Assumptions · CAV (2) 2026 |
Automated reasoning and model checking
compositional verification |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | Compositional Verification of Timed Automata via Violation Assumptions · CAV (2) 2026 |
Automated reasoning and model checking › model checking › real-time model checking
timed automata model checking |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | Compositional Verification of Timed Automata via Violation Assumptions · CAV (2) 2026 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
violation assumptions · 2.0timed automata · 2.0compositional verification · 2.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | Compositional Verification of Timed Automata via Violation AssumptionsabstractAbstract In many verification tasks, system models do not correspond to the focused and idealized models that appear in research literature. In practice, models usually contain components and execution paths that are irrelevant to the property being verified or have only a limited effect on it. Compositional verification presents a practical method for coping with the larger and less targeted models found in such settings. In this paper, we present an automated compositional framework for verifying timed safety properties in networks of timed automata. We show as a main result that the weakest environment assumption, commonly used in compositional reasoning, may in general fail to be recognizable within the timed automata formalism. This negative result motivates shifting the focus to the complement language of violation-inducing timed words, for which we establish recognizability using timed automata with silent transitions. We provide an algorithm for its construction and reduce its size by retaining only the parts directly relevant to the property. The synthesized assumption is later applied to verify the original system. This provides a sound and complete basis for compositional verification of timed automata, including the novel ability to handle automata with multiple clocks and non-deterministic behavior. Our results broaden the applicability of assume–guarantee verification techniques in timed automata and show substantial reductions in the size of the state-space, outperforming monolithic methods on a range of case studies. Mehran Moeini Jam, Hamed Kalantari, Ehsan Khamespanah, Marjan Sirjani, Ali Movaghar-Rahimabadi |
CAV (2) | 1 |