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

Moonjoo Kim 0001

dblp:50/1992-1 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2002
—ORCID · none

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 2

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 networks
2 papers
Network management and operations · 47% Routing and switching · 28% Network measurement and analytics · 25%
Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
2 papers
Program verification · 100%
Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
1 paper
Performance modeling and evaluation · 100%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Network management and operations
network verification
0.012002
Verisim: Formal Analysis of Network Simulations · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2002
Program verification
temporal logic verification
0.012002
Verisim: Formal Analysis of Network Simulations · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2002
Performance modeling and evaluation › simulation › communication system simulation
network simulation
0.012000
Verisim: Formal analysis of network simulations · ISSTA 2000
Performance modeling and evaluation
simulation
0.012000
Verisim: Formal analysis of network simulations · ISSTA 2000
Routing and switching
ad hoc network routing
0.012002
Verisim: Formal Analysis of Network Simulations · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2002
Routing and switching › wireless routing
AODV
0.012002
Verisim: Formal Analysis of Network Simulations · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2002

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

simulation · 0.1formal analysis · 0.1simulation-based monitoring · 0.1linear temporal logic · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2002 Verisim: Formal Analysis of Network Simulations
abstract
Network protocols are often analyzed using simulations. We demonstrate how to extend such simulations to check propositions expressing safety properties of network event traces in an extended form of linear temporal logic. Our technique uses the INS simulator together with a component of the MaC system to provide a uniform framework. We demonstrate its effectiveness by analyzing simulations of the ad hoc on-demand distance vector (AODV) routing protocol for packet radio networks. Our analysis finds violations of significant properties and we discuss the faults that cause them. Novel aspects of our approach include modest integration costs with other simulation objectives such as performance evaluation, greatly increased flexibility in specifying properties to be checked and techniques for analyzing complex traces of alarms raised by the monitoring software.
Karthikeyan Bhargavan, Carl A. Gunter, Moonjoo Kim 0001, Insup Lee 0001, Davor Obradovic, Oleg Sokolsky, Mahesh Viswanathan 0001
IEEE Trans. Software Eng.3
2000 Verisim: Formal analysis of network simulations
abstract
Why are there so few successful "real-world" programming and testing tools based on academic research? This talk focuses on program analysis tools, and proposes a surprisingly simple explanation with interesting ramifications.
Karthikeyan Bhargavan, Carl A. Gunter, Moonjoo Kim 0001, Insup Lee 0001, Davor Obradovic, Oleg Sokolsky, Mahesh Viswanathan 0001
ISSTA3
1999 Formally specified monitoring of temporal properties
abstract
We describe the Monitoring and Checking (MaC) framework which provides assurance on the correctness of an execution of a real-time system at runtime. Monitoring is performed based on a formal specification of system requirements. MaC bridges the gap between formal specification, which analyzes designs rather than implementations, and testing, which validates implementations but lacks formality. An important aspect of the framework is a clear separation between implementation-dependent description of monitored objects and high-level requirements specification. Another salient feature is automatic instrumentation of executable code. The paper presents an overview of the framework, languages to express monitoring scripts and requirements, and a prototype implementation of MaC targeted at systems implemented in Java.
Moonjoo Kim 0001, Mahesh Viswanathan 0001, Hanêne Ben-Abdallah, Sampath Kannan, Insup Lee 0001, Oleg Sokolsky
ECRTS1