VLDB 2026 Research / reviewers in the wild / expert
Haitao Feng
dblp:163/0081
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2023
0000-0002-3193-352XORCID · reported
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 since 2021
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
1 paper |
Empirical software engineering · 100% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Empirical software engineering › AI for software engineering
machine learning for software engineering |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Machine/Deep Learning for Software Engineering: A Systematic Literature Review · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2023 |
Empirical software engineering
replication and reproducibility |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Machine/Deep Learning for Software Engineering: A Systematic Literature Review · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2023 |
Empirical software engineering
systematic literature review |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Machine/Deep Learning for Software Engineering: A Systematic Literature Review · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2023 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
machine learning · 0.7deep learning · 0.7
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | Machine/Deep Learning for Software Engineering: A Systematic Literature ReviewabstractSince 2009, the deep learning revolution, which was triggered by the introduction of ImageNet, has stimulated the synergy between Software Engineering (SE) and Machine Learning (ML)/Deep Learning (DL). Meanwhile, critical reviews have emerged that suggest that ML/DL should be used cautiously. To improve the applicability and generalizability of ML/DL-related SE studies, we conducted a 12-year Systematic Literature Review (SLR) on 1,428 ML/DL-related SE papers published between 2009 and 2020. Our trend analysis demonstrated the impacts that ML/DL brought to SE. We examined the complexity of applying ML/DL solutions to SE problems and how such complexity led to issues concerning the reproducibility and replicability of ML/DL studies in SE. Specifically, we investigated how ML and DL differ in data preprocessing, model training, and evaluation when applied to SE tasks, and what details need to be provided to ensure that a study can be reproduced or replicated. By categorizing the rationales behind the selection of ML/DL techniques into five themes, we analyzed how model performance, robustness, interpretability, complexity, and data simplicity affected the choices of ML/DL models. LiGuo Huang, Amiao Gao, Jidong Ge, Haitao Feng, Ishna Satyarth, Ming Li 0005, He Zhang 0001, Vincent Ng 0001 |
IEEE Trans. Software Eng. | 6 |