Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Moonjoo Kim 0001
dblp:50/1992-1
· DBLP profile ↗
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
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Network management and operations
network verification |
0.0 | 1 | 2002 | Verisim: Formal Analysis of Network Simulations · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2002 |
Program verification
temporal logic verification |
0.0 | 1 | 2002 | Verisim: Formal Analysis of Network Simulations · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2002 |
Performance modeling and evaluation › simulation › communication system simulation
network simulation |
0.0 | 1 | 2000 | Verisim: Formal analysis of network simulations · ISSTA 2000 |
Performance modeling and evaluation
simulation |
0.0 | 1 | 2000 | Verisim: Formal analysis of network simulations · ISSTA 2000 |
Routing and switching
ad hoc network routing |
0.0 | 1 | 2002 | Verisim: Formal Analysis of Network Simulations · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2002 |
Routing and switching › wireless routing
AODV |
0.0 | 1 | 2002 | 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
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2002 | Verisim: Formal Analysis of Network SimulationsabstractNetwork 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 simulationsabstractWhy 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 |
ISSTA | 3 |
| 1999 | Formally specified monitoring of temporal propertiesabstractWe 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 |
ECRTS | 1 |