Eighth Macquarie Computing Mini-Conference (MCMC-09)

In the second week of June, 2009, the Macquarie Computing Mini-Conference will be held for the eighth consecutive year. It will be organized similar to the way it was done in 2008. One major change compared to last year relates to the review process: students will be required to submit their work under a given category/area. Review of the papers submitted under a particular category will be moderated by the relevant area chair.

This page will provide relevant information on:

MCMC-09 Program Committee

Program Chairs

Abhaya Nayak
Mark Dras

Local Organization Committee

  1. Ukachukwu Ndukwu (Chair)
  2. Sylvian Chow
  3. Les Bell
  4. Donna Hua
  5. Gaurav Gupta
  6. Mahbub Hassan
  7. Rolf Kluge
  8. Jing Liu
  9. Aarthi Nagarajan
  10. Raghav Ramachandran
  11. Maxmilian Wittman

Area Chairs

Area chairs will moderate reviews of papers submitted under the corresponding area/category.

Area of Research (Category) Area Chair
Cryptography Scott McCallum
Databases Yan Wang
Data Mining and Analysis Peter Busch
Human-centred Computing Manolya Kavakli
Information Protection and Security Rajan Shankaran
Language Technology Diego Molla-Aliod
Programming Languages Len Hamey
Rational Agents and Knowledge Representation Peter Busch
Web Services and Business Processes Yan Wang
Other Depends on the nature of submission

Academic PC Members

  1. Abhaya Nayak
  2. Annabelle McIver
  3. Ben Hachey
  4. Bernard Mans
  5. Christophe doche
  6. Diego Molla-Aliod
  7. Igor Shparlinski
  8. Josef Pieprzyk
  9. Lee Flax
  10. Len Hamey
  11. Manolya Kavakli
  12. Mark Dras
  13. Matthew Honnibal
  14. Mehmet Orgun
  15. Peter Busch
  16. Rajan Shankaran
  17. Robert Dale
  18. Rolf Schwitter
  19. Scott McCallum
  20. Tony Sloane
  21. Yan Wang

Student PC Members

  1. Aarthi Nagarajan
  2. Agata Filipowska
  3. Cameron McDonald
  4. Daniel Sutantyo
  5. Hien Nguyen
  6. Leslie Bell
  7. Guanfeng Liu
  8. Mary Gardiner
  9. Maximilian Wittmann
  10. Monika Kaczmarek
  11. Przemyslaw Szczepan Sokolowski
  12. Raghav Ramachandran
  13. Susan Howlett
  14. Sze Wong
  15. Ukachukwu Ndukwu
  16. Xenogene Gray

[Back to Top]

MCMC-09 Technical Program

MCMC-09 – Some Program Highlights

Keynote Speech 1

  • Speaker: Professor Carroll Morgan (NSW/NICTA) will address on 10th of June.
  • Topic: (In-)Formal Methods: The Lost Art
  • Time/Venue: 9:50 – 10:50; June 10, 2009; Room E6A102

Brief Bio: Carroll Morgan was first at UNSW (BSc), then Sydney University (PhD) and then felt that after eight years in academia it was time to see what this “real world” was, of software-at-the-coal-face that everyone seemed to be talking about. He planned (roughly) five years with a small company, then five years with a big one; and then “We’ll see.”
Two years into working with ASCOMP Pty Ltd (based in Gordon on the North Shore), he was unexpectedly back at Sydney University taking over the Operating Systems course in mid-semester. (For that he used the John Lions “Unix Commentary” books.) The spell at ASCOMP had been a very steep learning curve, with experience gained mainly by watching other people’s software disasters at close quarters — and trying not to repeat them oneself.

Two years more, and another unexpected move occurred — this time to Oxford University for a three-month visiting position. That was extended to two years; and then those two years turned into a permanent appointment to the Faculty there, with the learning curve becoming nearly vertical. His work from then on was mainly in the area of Formal Methods, a topic in which Oxford at the time was particularly strong. Thus, the second time around, the experience was gained by observing others’ successes.

Almost twenty years later he returned to Australia, and for two years worked as a programmer developing web-based “solutions” in J2EE, a Java-based three-tier application-development environment for distributed business systems… and noticed that all that had changed in twenty years was that the inch-thick fan-folded hexadecimal core-dumps had turned into Java stack-traces in a font so large that all but the last line scrolled off the top of the screen — and, worse, one had no idea from which machine in which city the exception had come from. That finished with his becoming an Australian Professorial Fellow at UNSW, and returning to research.

His recent work has been mainly on probabilistic programs (and their semantics), and –most recently– on security; in his “spare time” he is writing an iPhone app, for which the learning curve is space-filling. He is convinced that things could be a lot better, and that it could start at the undergraduate level or even before.

Keynote Speech 2

  • Speaker: Professor Claude Sammut (UNSW node Director, ARC Centre of Excellence for Autonomous Systems) will address on 11th of June.
  • Topic: Robotics for Urban Search and Rescue.
  • Time/Venue: 11:30 – 12:30; June 11, 2009; E6A102.

Brief Bio: Claude Sammut is a Professor of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of New South Wales and Head of the Artificial Intelligence Research Group. He is the UNSW node Director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Autonomous Systems and a member of the joint ARC/NH&MRC project on Thinking Systems.
His early work on relational learning helped to the lay the foundations for the field of Inductive Logic Programming (ILP). With Donald Michie, he also did pioneering work in Behavioural Cloning. His current interests include Conversational Agents and Robotics. He was the leader of the UNSW teams that won RoboCup four-legged robot competitions in 2000, 2001 and 2003.

Claude Sammut is a member of the editorial boards of the Journal of Machine Learning Research, the Machine Learning Journal and New Generation Computing. He is the editor-in-chief of Springer’s forthcoming Encyclopedia of Machine Learning and was the general chair for the 2007 International Conference on Machine Learning.

MCMC-09 HDR Debate

MCMC-09, for the first time, will feature a debate involving as participants academics and students from local universities. After the participants put forth their arguments, the audience will get the opportunity to ask questions to the participants, and then the leads will have their final say. Finally the audience will get to vote on which side wins. Everybody is welcome!

  • Proposition: Publications based thesis is THE answer. 
    Date: June 10th, 2009. 1:30 — 2:30 pm.
    Chair A/Prof Anna Reid, Dept. of Education, Macquarie University
  • For the Proposition:
    • Prof Mike Johnson (Department of Computing, Macquarie University)
    • A/Prof Sanjay Chawla (Head of School, School of IT, University of Sydney)
    • Dr. Alison Madelaine (Macquarie University Special Education Centre)
  • Against the Proposition:
    • A/Prof Maurice Pagnucco (Director HDR, School of CSE, UNSW)
    • Dr. Alan Blair (School of CSE, UNSW)
    • ??

    We are expecting some students from the three universities in question to participate in the debate as well.

Technical Program Details

There are twenty eight talks with some special events in between. Each student talk is allotted 20 minutes, of which the first 15 minutes is talk-time and the last 5 minutes are for Q&A. The session chair will signal the speaker 5 minutes, and 1 minute before time runs out.

Day #1: June 10th. Room E6A102

Time Speaker Talk
9:30 – 9:50 Stephen Thurgate,
Executive Dean, Faculty of Science and Engineering
Opening Address
9:50 – 10:50 Carroll Morgan 
Keynote Speech:
(In-)Formal Methods: The Lost Art
10:50 – 11:10 MORNING TEA
(Third Floor Tea Room)
Session #1: Language Technology. Room E6A102 Chair: Diego Molla-Aliod
11:10 – 11:30 Andrew Lampert Requests and Commitments in Email
11:30 – 11:50 Mary Gardiner. On sentiment and near-synonymy.
11:50 – 12:10 Jette Viethen A Computational Model for the Generation of Referring Expressions
12:10 – 1:30 LUNCH
1:30 – 2:30 Chair: Anna Reid HDR Debate: Publications based thesis is THE answer.
2:30 – 3:00 AFTERNOON TEA
(Third Floor Tea Room)
Session #2 Rational Agents and Knowledge Representation Chair: Peter Busch
3:00 – 3:20 KRaghav Ramachandran Resource-bounded belief contraction
3:20 – 3:40 Armin Hezart. Strength of arguments
3:40 – 4:00 Ukachukwu Ndukwu. Formal Verification of Probabilistic Systems
4:00 – 5:00 MCMC-09 RECEPTION 
(Third Floor Tea Room)


Day #2: June 11th. Room E6A102

Time Speaker Talk
Session #3: Data Mining and Analysis Chair: Jian Yang
9:50 – 10:10 Akther Shermin Using Dynamic Bayesian Network to Infer Gene Regulatory Networks
10:10 – 10:30 Yihao Zhang Short-term Prediction of Time Series Based on Element Oriented Analysis
10:30 – 10:50 Moad Maghaydah RDBMS-Based Storage for Dynamic XML Documents
10:50 – 11:10 Hadi Mashinchi Global Continuous Optimization
11:10 – 11:30 MORNING TEA
(Third Floor Tea Room)
11:30 – 12:30 Claude Sammut
Node Director, CoE for Autonomous Systems, UNSW
Keynote Speech:
Robotics for Urban Search and Rescue.
12:30 – 2:00 LUNCH
Session #4: Information Protection and Security I Chair: Scott McCallum
2:00 – 2:20 Nguyen Vo. Protecting Web 2.0 Services from Botnet Exploitations
2:20 – 2:40 Daniel Sutantyo Mathematics of Elliptic Curve Cryptography
2:40 – 3:00 Chiew Kang Leng Investigation in Steganalysis
3:00 3:20 Lei Li. Trust Rating Aggregations in Service-Oriented Applications
3:20 – 3:40 AFTERNOON TEA
(Third Floor Tea Room)
Session #5: Information Protection and Security II Chair: Rajan Shankaran
3:40 – 4:00 Stephen McCombie Phishing and Eastern European Organised Cybercrime
4:00 – 4:20 Les Bell A New Approach to Computational Trust
4:20 – 4:40 Aarthi Nagarajan Techniques for the Design of Trust Enhanced Secure Applications


Day #3: June 12th. Room E6A102

Time Speaker Talk
Session #6: Web Services and Business Processes I Chair: Yan Wang
9:30 – 9:50 Yi Wang A Framework for Behaviour Change Management in Service Composition
9:50 – 10:10 Huiyuan Zheng Yi Wang Adaptive Service Composition
A Framework for Behaviour Change Management in Service Composition
10:10 – 10:30 Haiyang Sun Huiyuan Zheng Towards Security Management Systems in Service Oriented Business Collaboration
Adaptive Service Composition
10:30 – 10:50 Daiqin He Authorization Control in Business Collaboration
10:50 – 11:10 MORNING TEA
(Third Floor Tea Room)
Session #7: Human-centred Computing Chair: Len Hamey
11:10 – 11:30 Iwan Kartiko Does the Visual Complexity of Animated-Virtual Actors in Virtual Reality Applications affect learning?
11:30 – 11:50 Susan Bruck Cybersickness and Anxiety During Simulated Motion: Implications for Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy
11:50 – 12:10 Xenogene Gray. The Epistemology of Expertise
12:10 – 12:30 Maximilian Wittmann Understanding how students learn Computer Graphics
12:30 – 2::00 MCMC-09 LUNCH (Provided) 
(Third Floor Tea Room)
Session #8: Web Services and Business Processes II Chair: Manolya Kavakli
2:00 – 2:20 Rolf Kluge A Service-oriented approach to requirements-driven selection of commercial off-the-shelf software solutions
2:20 – 2:40 Mahbub Hassan A Framework for Mobile Service Provisioning
2:40 – 3:00 Sri Madhisetty Adoption of service based computing in the IT-industry.
3:00 – 4:00 MCMC-09 Panel Discussion , Closing + Awards Future of MCMC: Where do we go from Here?
Chair: Bernard Mans
Panellists include: Trish Fanning, Associate Dean (HDR), Faculty of Science and Engineering


[Back to Top]

Second Round MCMC-09 Technical Program

November 17th. Room E6A357

Time Speaker Talk
9:00 – 9:10 Bernard Mans,
Head, Department of Computing.
Opening Address
Session #1: . Room E6A357Information Protection and Security Chair: Rajan Shankaran
09:10 – 09:30 Hassan Jameel Asghar Cryptographic Human Identification Protocols
09:30 – 09:50 Reza Sepahi New Notions of Security for Public-Key Encryption
09:50 – 10:10 Haiyang Sun Towards Security Management Systems in Service Oriented Business Collaboration
10:10 – 10:30 Venkat Balakrishnan Trust Enhanced Secure Framework for Mobile Ad hoc Networks
10:30 – 10:45 Tea Break
Session #2 Information Services Chair: Manning Li
10:45 – 11:05 Bruc Liong Managing Supportability in Large Software Projects – Roundtrip Engineering Approach with Metrics
11:05 – 11:25 Kalyan K. Janakiraman Failed-tuple triggered blocking strategy to ensure spatial integrity in near real-time spatial database replication
11:25 – 11:45 Joe Zou Accountability in the Service Oriented Architecture
11:45 – 12:00 Tea Break
Session #3: Others Chair: Peter Busch
12:00 – 12:20 Matthew Roberts Optimising the Pattern Calculus
12:20 – 12:40 Yifan GAO Facial Expression Analysis and Compression Using Wavelets
12:40 – 01:00 Dilshan jayarathna A Security Model for Trusted Virtual Machine Monitors


Note: The following two talks

  • Ilya Anisimoff. Hesitation Modelling in a Cognitively Plausible Incremental Natural Language Generation System
  • Pawel Mazur. Temporal Expression Recognition, Interpretation and Normalisation

will be given separately as part of the LTG Seminar.


[Back to Top]

MCDC-09 Interview Panels and Schedule

June 15th (Monday). Parallel Interviews in rooms E6A357, CTS-meeting room and E6A251

Room E6A357 CTS Meeting Rm Room E6A251
Time Panel #1: 
Mark Dras and Tony Sloane
Panel #2:
Mark Dras and Mike Johnson 

(Len to replace Mike if necessary)
Panel #3:
Scott McCallum and Rajan Shankaran
10:00 – 10:20 Andrew Lampert Raghav Ramachandran Nguyen Vo.
10:20 – 10:40 Mary Gardiner Armin Hezart.
Ukachukwu Ndukwu.
Daniel Sutantyo
10:40 – 11:00 Jette Viethen Ukachukwu Ndukwu. Chiew Kang Leng
11:00 – 11:15 Break Break Break


Room E6A357 CTS Meeting Rm Room E6A251
Time Panel #4: 
Yan Wang and Len Hamey 
(Leszek to replace Len if Len goes to Panel 2)
Panel #5: 
Mehmet Orgun and Abhaya Nayak
11:15 – 11:35 Yi Wang Iwan Kartiko
11:35 – 11:55 Huiyuan Zheng Susan Bruck
11:55 – 12:15 Daiqin He Lei Li.
12:15 – 2:00 Break Break Break


Room E6A357 CTS Meeting Rm Room E6A251
Panel #6: 
Rajan Shankaran and Leszek Maciaszek
Panel #7:
Mike Johnson and Mark Dras

(Abhaya to replace Mike if necessary)
Panel #8: 
Len Hamey and Josef Pieprzyk
2:00 – 2:20 Les Bell Xenogene Gray. Akther Shermin
2:20 – 2:40 Aarthi Nagarajan Maximilian Wittmann Yihao Zhang
2:40 – 3:00 Stephen McCombie Mahbub Hassan Hadi Mashinchi
3:00 – 3:15 Rolf Kluge
(Abhaya/Mehmet to replace Leszek for this interview)


 [Back to Top]

Second Round MCDC-09 Interview Panels and Schedule

November 17th (Tuesday). Parallel Interviews in rooms E6A357, CTS-meeting room and E6A202

Room E6A357 CTS Meeting Rm Room E6A202
Time Panel #1:
[Mark Dras | Abhaya Nayak] and Mike Johnson
Panel #2:
Peter Busch and Scott McCallum
Panel #3:
Manolya Kavakli and Debbie Richards
02:00 – 02:20 Sri Madhisetty Yi Wang Armin Hezart
02:20 – 02:40 Kalyan Janakiraman Huiyuan Zheng Moad Maghaydah
02:40 – 03:00 Bruc Liong Daisy Daiqin He Mary Gardiner
03:00 – 03:15 Ginige Tamara Break Break
Room E6A357 CTS Meeting Rm Room E6A202
Time Panel #4:
[Mark Dras | Abhaya Nayak] and Mehmet Orgun
Panel #5:
Rajan Shankaran and Manning Li
03:15 – 03:35 Matt Roberts Yifan Gao
03:35 – 03:55 Venkat Balakrishnan Meng Zhang
03:55 – 04:15 Dilshan Jayarathna Haiyang Sun
04:15 – 04:35 Mahbub Hassan Joe Zou

November 19th (Thursday). Room E6A357

Room E6A357
Time Panel #6:
Annabelle McIver and Jian Yang
10:00 – 10:20 Hassan Jameel Asghar
10:20 – 10:40 Reza Sepahi
10:40 – 11:00 Nguyen Vo
11:00 – 11:20 Md Russell Iqbal

[Back to Top]

Conference Date and Venue

  • June 10-12, 2009
  • Building E6A, Room 102
  • Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

 [Back to Top]

How is MCMC-09 different from MCMC-08

Unlike in MCMC-08, student will need to identify the category (area) that their work best fits in. The areas available are:

  1. Cryptography
  2. Databases
  3. Data Mining and Analysis
  4. Human-centred Computing
  5. Information Protection and Security
  6. Language Technology
  7. Programming Languages
  8. Rational Agents and Knowledge Representation
  9. Web Services and Business Processes
  10. Other

Browsing through the technical program of MCMC-08 will give an idea of where your work is likely to belong. Each category (area of research) has its own area chair — the list is provided at the MCMC-09 Program Committee section.

Reviews of works submitted under a particular category will be moderated by the corresponding area chair, whose task is to make sure that there’s a common set of expectations among reviewers before the reviews go to the students.

[Back to Top]

Who should submit work?

This forum is primarily intended to facilitate research training of (research) students enrolled in the Department of Computing, Macquarie University. Hence all Computing research students (Honours and Masters included) are invited to submit their work to this forum. All Doctoral students who joined the PhD program prior to January 2009, and are not expected to submit by September 2009 are required to submit to this forum. Exceptions may be made in case the supervisors in question make a really strong case why a student in this category should not present at MCMC-09. All other Doctoral students are strongly encouraged to submit to this forum.

[Back to Top]

What to submit?

Students will submit materials in two stages: (a) initial submission to receive feedback (by May 24th), and (b) final, revised submission (by June 12th).

Initial Submission:

Students are expected to submit two items by the initial submission date (May 24th), zipped together into a single file:

  1. Abstract of the (proposed) thesis — in about 300 words (less than one standard page), in pdf format. The abstracts will be reviewed by a select group of reviewers, and the students will get the feedback before submitting the final version, and
  2. Slides that you will use for presentation purpose — about seven or eight, in pdf or ppt. The reviewers may or may not provide comments on the slides — it is up to their discretion. It is our experience from MCMC-08 that reviewers in general provided feedback on the slides as well as on the abstract.

As to the content of the abstract and slides, your thesis supervisor is at the best position to advise. We do have some tips and a sample below.

We expect each abstract to receive feedback from four reviewers:

  1. an academic who is an expert in the area
  2. an academic from outside the area
  3. a new PhD student, and
  4. an experienced PhD student.

Your slides might also receive some feedback.

Final Submission:

After the review period, the students will get about five days to take the comments into account before the presentation. By June 12, they should submit:

  1. The revised and final version of the abstract — in about 300 words (one standard page).
  2. A self-assessment report (1-2 pages) outlining:
    1. Research Progress to Date — List of major tasks completed since their last annual review.
    2. Research papers published or submitted, or any other significant research achievement since last review.
    3. Next Year’s Plan — List of problems you intend to tackle in course of the next year
    4. Other Issues — List any impediment to your research progress since last annual review (e.g., major illness, delays in obtaining experimental equipment, difficulties with supervision, language difficulties, etc.).
  3. Optionally, a sample of your written research work (recent publication/submission).

[Back to Top]

How to Submit?

As in the last two years, MCMC-09 will use facilities made available by the EasyChair Conference System. All students who wish to submit their work for MCMC-09 must register at the EasyChair MCMC-09 site as an author, then follow the appropriate steps. Please bear in mind that if you do not already have an EasyChair account, you will need to create an account before registering as an author for MCMC-09. For registration, you are suggested to use the MQ email firstname.lastname@mq.edu.au. Some PhD students will be invited to serve as PC members. Invitations by emails will be sent out to MQ email addresses.

A single zipped file should be submitted. This file should contain the abstract and slides (as well as self assessment report plus possibly sample work when submitting later for the interview panel) as distinct pdf documents. In your submitted documents, you need to state the month and the year of enrolment. The naming convention for documents illustrated below should be followed:

  1. John Smith’s abstract should be named: John_Smith_abstract.pdf
  2. John Smith’s slides should be named: John_Smith_slides.pdf
  3. John Smith’s assessment report should be named: John_Smith_assessment.pdf (for final submission)
  4. John Smith’s sample work should be named: John_Smith_sample.pdf (for final submission)
  5. John Smith’s zipped file should be named: John_Smith.zip

[Back to Top]


The tentative time line of events is as follows:

  1. Students’ work submission deadline: May 24
  2. Abstract bidding and assignment: May 26-28
  3. Reviews due: June 04
  4. Students receive feedback: June 05
  5. Mini-Conference: June 10-12
  6. Students submit final version: June 12
  7. Student review by panel: June 15

For genuine cases of students who cannot absolutely make it to the mini-conference (i.e., presentation+panel interview), there will be another, one off, supplementary mini-conference. Such students should contact the Program Chairs as soon as possible.

[Back to Top]

How to produce a good abstract and slides – tips and samples


In general, keep the guiding principles below in mind:

  1. The purpose of the abstract is to outline the (planned) structure and content of your thesis. We know that you won’t have a complete thesis abstract until you submit, but this abstract should explain your research questions and outline your approaches to tackling them, in such a way that it can grow into your final thesis abstract.
    At UQ, this use of an abstract during a PhD is described as a writing tool that “will help you to carry a short version of your thesis in your head. This will focus your thinking on what you are really doing, help you [and us — MD] to see the relevance of what you are currently working on within the bigger picture, and help to keep the links which will eventually unify your thesis.”
  2. Consequently, the abstract should provide the big picture, and put the research question in context. There’s no one correct structure for such an abstract. One possible structure is to start by explaining the background, and consequently why what you’re tackling is a worthwhile problem (one paragraph); then follow that by explaining the key idea in your thesis (one paragraph); and then describe how you developed or explored that idea (or are currently developing or exploring it, or will develop or explore it) along with any results you might have already (one paragraph per approach taken to exploring the idea).
  3. The abstract should be well-written:
    • Don’t make sentences too long and convoluted.
    • Don’t launch straight into jargon, and only use it where necessary.
    • Each paragraph should be self contained, and with a clear focus.
    • The transition between one paragraph and next should not be abrupt.
    • The end of the abstract should be self-evident to the reader.
  4. If you submitted an abstract last year, then we’d expect that for this year’s abstract there wouldn’t be too many changes to the previous one. This year’s one should just reflect any new results, any changes in direction or emphasis that have occurred over the year, or any reformulating of your topic that you’ve come up with in the course of thinking about it over the year.

Some other resources you might look at:


  1. In the introduction provide a clear background to your research topic. Give a simple example to set the context.
  2. Use plain English. Judiciously chosen diagrams help a lot. Give the big picture, and tell how what you are doing/ planning to do fits in this picture.
  3. Make sure the research question is crystal clear.
  4. You should include some discussion of the technical details of your own work — a new algorithm you’ve developed, an analysis of data you’ve done, etc — but keep it simple. You can assume that your audience is knowledgeable in general computer science and/or information systems, but not in your specific topic. Keep in mind that some of the reviewers are non-experts, and it should not completely throw them off!
  5. Towards the end, in a “Discussion” slide, tell in very clear terms what you have achieved, particularly keeping the big picture in mind. Identify what other problems need to be addressed.
  6. Give an idea of when/how you are going to address the rest of the problems.

[Back to Top]

Easychair-related info

Using Easychair could prove frustrating at times. Please keep the following items in mind which might help you out:

  1. You may already have one or more Easychair accounts. It is best to merge them into one. Easychair provides a facility to merge multiple accounts. For this purpose, login to Easychair and go to EasyChair –> My Account, and follow the steps.
  2. It is best to tell Easychair which email addresses you are using. This year around, emails from easychair will be sent out to username@science.mq.edu.au whereas Easychair might know you either as username@mq.edu.au or as username@comp.mq.edu.au or as some other private address such as username@gmail.com. Telling Easychair that all these addresses are your helps. Easychair provides a facility for doing this. As before, for this purpose, login to Easychair and go to EasyChair –> My Account, and follow the appropriate steps.

[Back to Top]

Who to Contact?

This is a living document. Please check it for further announcements. Should you have any query at this point, please feel free to contact the program co-chairs of MCMC-09: Dr. Abhaya C. Nayak and Dr. Mark Dras.


[Back to Top]