Demo Data from SIGIR 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Monika Maidl
dblp:45/5648
· DBLP profile ↗
5ranked-venue papers
4as first author
0since 2021 · last 2020
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 3 · 2 first-authorTheory of computation · 2 · 2 first-authorSecurity and privacy · 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.
| Theoretical computer science
2 papers |
Logic in computer science · 47% Automated reasoning and model checking · 25% Automata and formal languages · 22% | |
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper |
Program verification · 100% |
Topics — the 7 heaviest of 7, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Program verification
model checking |
0.0 | 1 | 2001 | A Unifying Model Checking Approach for Safety Properties of Parameterized Systems · CAV 2001 |
Program verification › concurrent program verification
parameterized verification |
0.0 | 1 | 2001 | A Unifying Model Checking Approach for Safety Properties of Parameterized Systems · CAV 2001 |
Automated reasoning and model checking
parameterized systems |
0.0 | 1 | 2001 | A Unifying Model Checking Approach for Safety Properties of Parameterized Systems · CAV 2001 |
Logic in computer science › temporal logic
safety properties |
0.0 | 1 | 2001 | A Unifying Model Checking Approach for Safety Properties of Parameterized Systems · CAV 2001 |
Automata and formal languages › omega-automata
büchi automata |
0.0 | 1 | 2000 | The Common Fragment of CTL and LTL · FOCS 2000 |
Logic in computer science
temporal logic |
0.0 | 1 | 2000 | The Common Fragment of CTL and LTL · FOCS 2000 |
Computational complexity › complexity classes › PSPACE
PSPACE-completeness |
0.0 | 1 | 2000 | The Common Fragment of CTL and LTL · FOCS 2000 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
inductive definitions · 0.0automata representation · 0.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | Threat Modeling for Cyber-Physical Systems: A Two-dimensional Taxonomy Approach for Structuring Attack Actions
Monika Maidl, Gerhard Münz, Stefan Seltzsam, Marvin Wagner, Roman Wirtz, Maritta Heisel |
ICSOFT | 1 |
| 2008 | Formal Security Analysis of Electronic Software Distribution Systems
Monika Maidl, David von Oheimb, Peter Hartmann, Richard Robinson |
SAFECOMP | 1 |
| 2003 | Simple Representative Instantiations for Multicast Protocols
Javier Esparza, Monika Maidl |
TACAS | 2 |
| 2001 | A Unifying Model Checking Approach for Safety Properties of Parameterized Systems
Monika Maidl |
CAV | 1 |
| 2000 | The Common Fragment of CTL and LTLabstractIt is well-known that CTL (computation tree logic) and LTL (linear time logic) have incomparable expressive power. In this paper, we give an inductive definition of those ACTL (Action-based CTL) formulas that can be expressed in LTL. In addition, we obtain a procedure to decide whether an ACTL formula lies in LTL, and show that this problem is PSPACE-complete. By omitting path quantifiers, we get an inductive definition of the LTL formulas that are expressible in ACTL. We can show that the fragment defined by our logic represents exactly those LTL formulas the negation of which can be represented by a 1-weak Bu/spl uml/chi automaton and that, for this fragment, the representing automaton can be chosen to be of size linear in the size of the formula. Monika Maidl |
FOCS | 1 |