Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Yue Cai Zhu
dblp:166/4921
· DBLP profile ↗
3ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2018
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 3 · 1 first-authorDatabases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1
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 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Empirical software engineering › developer studies
developer turnover |
0.2 | 1 | 2016 | Quantifying and mitigating turnover-induced knowledge loss: case studies of chrome and a project at avaya · ICSE 2016 |
Empirical software engineering
mining software repositories |
0.1 | 1 | 2016 | Quantifying and mitigating turnover-induced knowledge loss: case studies of chrome and a project at avaya · ICSE 2016 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
monte carlo simulation · 0.2financial risk analysis · 0.2
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | Test Re-Prioritization in Continuous Testing EnvironmentsabstractNew changes are constantly and concurrently being made to large software systems. In modern continuous integration and deployment environments, each change requires a set of tests to be run. This volume of tests leads to multiple test requests being made simultaneously, which warrant prioritization of such requests. Previous work on test prioritization schedules queued tests at set time intervals. However, after a test has been scheduled it will never be reprioritized even if new higher risk tests arrive. Furthermore, as each test finishes, new information is available which could be used to reprioritize tests. In this work, we use the conditional failure probability among tests to reprioritize tests after each test run. This means that tests can be reprioritized hundreds of times as they wait to be run. Our approach is scalable because we do not depend on static analysis or coverage measures and simply prioritize tests based on their co-failure probability distributions. We named this approach CODYNAQ and in particular, we propose three prioritization variants called CODYNAQSINGLE, CODYNAQDOUBLE and CODYNAQFLEXI. We evaluate our approach on two data sets, CHROME and Google testing data. We find that our co-failure dynamic re-prioritization approach, CODYNAQ, outperforms the default order, FIFOBASELINE, finding the first failure and all failures for a change request by 31% and 62% faster, respectively. CODYNAQ also outperforms GOOGLETCP by finding the first failure 27% faster and all failures 62% faster. Yue Cai Zhu, Emad Shihab, Peter C. Rigby |
ICSME | 1 |
| 2016 | Quantifying and mitigating turnover-induced knowledge loss: case studies of chrome and a project at avayaabstractThe utility of source code, as of other knowledge artifacts, is predicated on the existence of individuals skilled enough to derive value by using or improving it. Developers leaving a software project deprive the project of the knowledge of the decisions they have made. Previous research shows that the survivors and newcomers maintaining abandoned code have reduced productivity and are more likely to make mistakes. We focus on quantifying the extent of abandoned source files and adapt methods from financial risk analysis to assess the susceptibility of the project to developer turnover. In particular, we measure the historical loss distribution and find (1) that projects are susceptible to losses that are more than three times larger than the expected loss. Using historical simulations we find (2) that projects are susceptible to large losses that are over five times larger than the expected loss. We use Monte Carlo simulations of disaster loss scenarios and find (3) that simplistic estimates of the 'truck factor' exaggerate the potential for loss. To mitigate loss from developer turnover, we modify Cataldo et al.'s coordination requirements matrices. We find (4) that we can recommend the correct successor 34% to 48% of the time. We also find that having successors reduces the expected loss by as much as 15%. Our approach helps large projects assess the risk of turnover thereby making risk more transparent and manageable. Peter C. Rigby, Yue Cai Zhu, Samuel M. Donadelli, Audris Mockus |
ICSE | 2 |
| 2015 | Organizational Volatility and Post-release Defects: A Replication Case Study Using Data from Google ChromeabstractThe quality of software projects is affected by developer turnover. Mockus studied organizational volatility in the context a large switching software project at Avaya. We replicate his model of the impact of organizational volatility on post-release defects. At the time of Mockus's study, Avaya was experimenting with outsourcing and layoffs were prevalent. In contrast, we study volatility on the Chrome web-browser, which is growing rapidly in terms of popularity and team size. Where possible, we use the same factors as Mockus: the number of co-owners, the number of developers joining and leaving the organization, the number of co-changing directories, developer experience and, instead of LOCs, the churn. Our investigation is conducted at the directory instead of the file level. The control variables, including churn, number of co-owners, and expertise all conform with the consensus in the literature that more changes, more co-owners, and lower expertise lead to an increase in customer reported post-release defects. After normalizing by the highly correlated number of co-owners, the number of developers who leave and join both reduce the number of post-release defects. We discuss this unexpected result. Samuel M. Donadelli, Yue Cai Zhu, Peter C. Rigby |
MSR | 2 |