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.

Mathai Joseph

dblp:74/6799 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
20ranked-venue papers
10as first author
0since 2021 · last 2007
—ORCID · none

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 8 · 5 first-authorTheory of computation · 7 · 3 first-authorApplied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 4 · 3 first-authorSystems, architecture and hardware · 2Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1 · 1 first-author

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.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
3 papers
Software maintenance and evolution · 53% Program verification · 46% Requirements engineering and software design · 2%
Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
2 papers
Embedded and real-time systems · 100%
Theoretical computer science
1 paper
Logic in computer science · 100%

Topics — the 5 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Embedded and real-time systems
real-time scheduling
0.021999
Specification and Verification of Fault-Tolerance, Timing, and Scheduling · ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 1999
What's 'Real' about Real-Time Systems? · RTSS 1988
Program verification › system verification
fault tolerance verification
0.011999
Specification and Verification of Fault-Tolerance, Timing, and Scheduling · ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 1999
Program verification › quantitative verification
timing verification
0.011999
Specification and Verification of Fault-Tolerance, Timing, and Scheduling · ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 1999
Logic in computer science
formal methods
0.012005
Formal Aids for the Growth of Software Systems · FM 2005
Requirements engineering and software design
formal specification
0.011988
What's 'Real' about Real-Time Systems? · RTSS 1988

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

formal methods · 0.1scheduling theory · 0.0formal proof framework · 0.0limited resource semantics · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2007 Abstractions for Real Real-time Systems
abstract
Summary form only given. From the earliest days, designers of real-time systems have had to decide how to manage the hardware-level mechanisms (such as interrupts and multi-level priorities) that have been provided to share the computing resources between competing demands. One approach is to ignore these mechanisms and use software techniques to schedule program segments; another is to align the software architecture with the hardware features, e.g. by dividing a program into tasks or processes that are scheduled dynamically according to hardware priorities. These are two of many possible engineering solutions to the problem of meeting the timing constraints of real-time programs. Looked at more formally, the problem is to prove that the implementation of the program, by whatever method is chosen, can be shown to satisfy its timing specifications. This is altogether harder to accomplish. Proofs at the program level require guarantees of timing properties at lower levels.
Mathai Joseph
TASE1
2005 Formal Aids for the Growth of Software Systems
Mathai Joseph
FM1
2004 Care, Feeding and Growth of Software Systems
Mathai Joseph
SEFM1
2003 Adding Formalism to Methods or Where and When Will Industry Use Formal Reasoning?
Mathai Joseph
ICFEM1
2001 Formalizing Models and Meta-models for System Development
abstract
Meta-model based development offers a promising way of managing the complexity of industrial scale software development by describing a system in terms of different 'views'. These views can then be described as instances of a single meta-model. Such views are usually not disjoint and it is essential that they are shown to be consistent. A weakness of meta-modelling tools is the lack of support for describing the behaviour of models, and this is central to demonstrating the consistency of views. We address this problem by combining meta-modelling with formal techniques for stating and verifying behavioural properties. In this paper, we describe a formalization of models and meta-models and show how this leads to automated procedures for consistency checking between views in an industrial software development framework.
Purandar Bhaduri, Mathai Joseph
APSEC3
2001 Dynamic Scheduling and Fault-Tolerance: Specification and Verification
Tomasz Janowski, Mathai Joseph
Real Time Syst.2
2001 Verification, refinement and scheduling of real-time programs
Zhiming Liu 0001, Mathai Joseph
Theor. Comput. Sci.2
1999 Specification and Verification of Fault-Tolerance, Timing, and Scheduling
abstract
Fault-tolerance and timing have often been considered to be implementation issues of a program, quite distinct from the functional safety and liveness properties. Recent work has shown how these non-functional and functional properties can be verified in a similar way. However, the more practical question of determining whether a real-time program will meet its deadlines, i.e., showing that there is a feasible schedule, is usually done using scheduling theory, quite separately from the verification of other properties of the program. This makes it hard to use the results of scheduling analysis in the design, or redesign, of fault-tolerant and real-time programs. This article shows how fault-tolerance, timing, and schedulability can be specified and verified using a single notation and model. This allows a unified view to be taken of the functional and nonfunctional properties of programs and a simple transformational method to be usedto combine these properties. It also permits results from scheduling theory to be interpreted and used within a formal proof framework. The notation and model are illustrated using a simple example.
Zhiming Liu 0001, Mathai Joseph
ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst.2
1995 Verification of Schedulability for Real-Time Programs
abstract
Abstract Assume that a real-time program P T consisting of a number of parallel processes is executed on a system having a set Pr of processors which are shared between the processes by a real-time scheduler S T . Assume that P T must meet some timing deadlines. We show that such an implementation of P T can be represented as a transformationL( P T ) and that the deadlines of P T will be met if they are satisfied by the timing properties of the transformed program. The condition for feasibility of a real-time program executed under a scheduler is formalized and rules are provided for verification. The scheduler S T can be specified generically and applied to different programs, making it unnecessary to introduce low-level operations such as scheduling primitives into the programming language. Thus real-time program specification and Schedulability can be considered in the same framework and the timing properties of a program can be determined at the specification level. By separating the specification of the scheduler from that of the program, the feasibility of an implementation can be proved by considering a scheduling policy rather than its implementation details.
Zhiming Liu 0001, Mathai Joseph, Tomasz Janowski
Formal Aspects Comput.2
1994 A Compositional Framework for Fault Tolerance by Specification Transformation
Doron A. Peled, Mathai Joseph
Theor. Comput. Sci.2
1992 Transformation of Programs for Fault-Tolerance
abstract
Abstract In this paper we describe how a program constructed for afault-freesystem can be transformed into afault-tolerantprogram for execution on a system which is susceptible to failures. A program is described by a set of atomic actions which perform transformations from states to states. We assume that a fault environment is represented by a programF. Interference by the fault environmentFon the execution of a programPcan then be described as afault-transformationℱ which transformsPinto a program ℱ(P). This is proved to be equivalent to the programP□PF, wherePFis derived fromPandF, and □ defines the union of the sets of actions ofPandFP. A recovery transformation ℛ transformsPinto a program ℛ(P) =P□Rby adding a set ofrecovery actions R, called arecovery program. If the system isfailstopand faults do not affect recovery actions, we have ℱ(ℛ(P))=ℱ(P)□R=P□PF□RWe illustrate this approach to fault-tolerant programming by considering the problem of designing a protocol that guarantees reliable communication from a sender to a receiver in spite of faults in the communication channel between them.
Zhiming Liu 0001, Mathai Joseph
Formal Aspects Comput.2
1991 P - A Logic - A Compositional Proof System for Distributed Programs
Paritosh K. Pandya, Mathai Joseph
Distributed Comput.2
1989 Time and Real-time in Programs
Mathai Joseph
FSTTCS1
1988 What's 'Real' about Real-Time Systems?
abstract
A real-time system is a concurrent computing system whose computations and actions must satisfy time constraints. Guaranteeing that such a system will meet its constraints can be viewed either in terms of an extended model of program correctness or as a problem of scheduling, e.g. establishing a feasible schedule. However, a crucial distinction between real-time and other concurrent programs is not merely that of time, but that the former must often execute on systems with limited resources. The authors give a short account of a limited resource semantics of program execution. The model can serve both as the basis for a formal specification system for real-time programs and to characterize real-time scheduling problems.>
Mathai Joseph, Asis Goswami
RTSS1
1987 Proof Rules for Fault Tolerant Distributed Programs
Mathai Joseph, Abha Moitra, Neelam Soundararajan
Sci. Comput. Program.1
1986 Finding Response Times in a Real-Time System
abstract
There are two major performance issues in a real-time system where a processor has a set of devices connected to it at different priority levels. The first is to prove whether, for a given assignment of devices to priority levels, the system can handle its peak processing load without losing any inputs from the devices. The second is to determine the response time for each device. There may be several ways of assigning the devices to priority levels so that the peak processing load is met, but only some (or perhaps none) of these ways will also meet the response-time requirements for the devices. In this paper, we define a condition that must be met to handle the peak processing load and describe how exact worst-case response times can then be found. When the condition cannot be met, we show how the addition of buffers for inputs can be useful. Finally, we discuss the use of multiple processors in systems for real-time applications.
Mathai Joseph, Paritosh K. Pandya
Comput. J.1
1986 A Structure-Directed Total Correctness Proof Rule for Recursive Procedure Calls
abstract
Recursive procedures have been extensively used for a long time, yet it was only in 1977 that Sokolowski gave a proof rule for the total correctness of recursive procedure calls. Unfortunately, even for simple programs his rule requires the use of complex predicates that encode information about the depth of recursion. Thus the rule can be very difficult to use for practical programs. In this paper we propose a new rule for this purpose. This rule makes use of the structure of the recursion which is discovered by carrying out an interval analysis of the procedure call graph in the proof. Proofs using this rule are simpler to carry out, and it is shown that Sokolowski's rule is in fact a special case of the new rule.
Paritosh K. Pandya, Mathai Joseph
Comput. J.2
1985 On a Problem in Real-Time Computing
Mathai Joseph
Inf. Process. Lett.1
1979 Some Aspects of Concurrent Programmming in CCNPASCAL
abstract
Abstract CCNPASCAL is a language derived from Pascal and Concurrent Pascal which has been used in the development of an operating system for a multiprocessor. This paper introduces some of the important features of the language and illustrates them with examples. The language provides mechanisms for interfacing separately compiled modules, for building abstractions of collections of resources and for efficient asynchronous communication.
K. T. Narayana, V. R. Prasad, Mathai Joseph
Softw. Pract. Exp.3
1970 An Analysis of Paging and Program Behaviour
Mathai Joseph
Comput. J.1