Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Hammad Khalid
dblp:05/7984
· DBLP profile ↗
3ranked-venue papers
2as first author
0since 2021 · last 2016
0000-0001-9597-8455ORCID · corroborated
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 3 · 2 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
2 papers |
Empirical software engineering · 58% Software maintenance and evolution · 22% Software testing · 20% |
Topics — the 6 heaviest of 7, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Empirical software engineering › mining software repositories › app store mining
app review analysis |
0.4 | 2 | 2014 | Prioritizing the devices to test your app on: a case study of Android game apps · SIGSOFT FSE 2014 On identifying user complaints of iOS apps · ICSE 2013 |
Empirical software engineering
mining software repositories |
0.4 | 2 | 2014 | Prioritizing the devices to test your app on: a case study of Android game apps · SIGSOFT FSE 2014 On identifying user complaints of iOS apps · ICSE 2013 |
Software testing › regression testing
test case prioritization |
0.2 | 1 | 2014 | Prioritizing the devices to test your app on: a case study of Android game apps · SIGSOFT FSE 2014 |
Software maintenance and evolution
software maintenance |
0.2 | 1 | 2013 | On identifying user complaints of iOS apps · ICSE 2013 |
Software maintenance and evolution › software updates
app updates |
0.0 | 1 | 2013 | On identifying user complaints of iOS apps · ICSE 2013 |
Software testing
regression testing |
0.0 | 1 | 2013 | On identifying user complaints of iOS apps · ICSE 2013 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
review mining · 0.2qualitative analysis · 0.2manual tagging · 0.2
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | Analyzing and automatically labelling the types of user issues that are raised in mobile app reviews
Stuart McIlroy, Nasir Ali, Hammad Khalid, Ahmed E. Hassan |
Empir. Softw. Eng. | 3 |
| 2014 | Prioritizing the devices to test your app on: a case study of Android game appsabstractStar ratings that are given by the users of mobile apps directly impact the revenue of its developers. At the same time, for popular platforms like Android, these apps must run on hundreds of devices increasing the chance for device-specific problems. Device-specific problems could impact the rating assigned to an app, given the varying capabilities of devices (e.g., hardware and software). To fix device-specific problems developers must test their apps on a large number of Android devices, which is costly and inefficient. Therefore, to help developers pick which devices to test their apps on, we propose using the devices that are mentioned in user reviews. We mine the user reviews of 99 free game apps and find that, apps receive user reviews from a large number of devices: between 38 to 132 unique devices. However, most of the reviews (80%) originate from a small subset of devices (on average, 33%). Furthermore, we find that developers of new game apps with no reviews can use the review data of similar game apps to select the devices that they should focus on first. Finally, among the set of devices that generate the most reviews for an app, we find that some devices tend to generate worse ratings than others. Our findings indicate that focusing on the devices with the most reviews (in particular the ones with negative ratings), developers can effectively prioritize their limited Quality Assurance (QA) efforts, since these devices have the greatest impact on ratings. Hammad Khalid, Meiyappan Nagappan, Emad Shihab, Ahmed E. Hassan |
SIGSOFT FSE | 1 |
| 2013 | On identifying user complaints of iOS appsabstractIn the past few years, the number of smartphone apps has grown at a tremendous rate. To compete in this market, both independent developers and large companies seek to improve the ratings of their apps. Therefore, understanding the user's perspective of mobile apps is extremely important. In this paper, we study the user's perspective of iOS apps by qualitatively analyzing app reviews. In total, we manually tag 6,390 reviews for 20 iOS apps. We find that there are 12 types of user complaints. Functional errors, requests for additional features, and app crashes are examples of the most common complaints. In addition, we find that almost 11% of the studied complaints were reported after a recent update. This highlights the importance of regression testing before updating apps. This study contributes a listing of the most frequent complaints about iOS apps to aid developers and researchers in better understanding the user's perspective of apps. Hammad Khalid |
ICSE | 1 |