Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Md Johirul Islam
dblp:210/2350
· DBLP profile ↗
4ranked-venue papers
2as first author
1since 2021 · last 2022
0000-0003-4820-2798ORCID · corroborated
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 4 · 2 first-author · 1 since 2021Databases, 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
3 papers |
Empirical software engineering · 60% Debugging and program repair · 24% Program synthesis and code generation · 16% | |
| Artificial intelligence
2 papers |
Deep learning architectures and training · 55% Efficient and distributed learning · 45% |
Topics — the 7 heaviest of 9, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Empirical software engineering
mining software repositories |
1.4 | 3 | 2022 | Manas: Mining Software Repositories to Assist AutoML · ICSE 2022 Repairing deep neural networks: fix patterns and challenges · ICSE 2020 A comprehensive study on deep learning bug characteristics · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2019 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
convolutional neural network |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Manas: Mining Software Repositories to Assist AutoML · ICSE 2022 |
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning › automated machine learning
neural architecture search |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Manas: Mining Software Repositories to Assist AutoML · ICSE 2022 |
Debugging and program repair
automated program repair |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Repairing deep neural networks: fix patterns and challenges · ICSE 2020 |
Debugging and program repair › automated program repair
neural network repair |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Repairing deep neural networks: fix patterns and challenges · ICSE 2020 |
Empirical software engineering › mining software repositories › bug report analysis
bug characterization |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | A comprehensive study on deep learning bug characteristics · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2019 |
Empirical software engineering
developer studies |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | A comprehensive study on deep learning bug characteristics · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2019 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
mutation operators · 1.1AutoML · 1.1empirical study · 0.9benchmark construction · 0.9survey analysis · 0.4repository mining · 0.4
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | Manas: Mining Software Repositories to Assist AutoMLabstractToday deep learning is widely used for building software. A software engineering problem with deep learning is that finding an appropriate convolutional neural network (CNN) model for the task can be a challenge for developers. Recent work on AutoML, more precisely neural architecture search (NAS), embodied by tools like Auto-Keras aims to solve this problem by essentially viewing it as a search problem where the starting point is a default CNN model, and mutation of this CNN model allows exploration of the space of CNN models to find a CNN model that will work best for the problem. These works have had significant success in producing high-accuracy CNN models. There are two problems, however. First, NAS can be very costly, often taking several hours to complete. Second, CNN models produced by NAS can be very complex that makes it harder to understand them and costlier to train them. We propose a novel approach for NAS, where instead of starting from a default CNN model, the initial model is selected from a repository of models extracted from GitHub. The intuition being that developers solving a similar problem may have developed a better starting point compared to the default model. We also analyze common layer patterns of CNN models in the wild to understand changes that the developers make to improve their models. Our approach uses commonly occurring changes as mutation operators in NAS. We have extended Auto-Keras to implement our approach. Our evaluation using 8 top voted problems from Kaggle for tasks including image classification and image regression shows that given the same search time, without loss of accuracy, Manas produces models with 42.9% to 99.6% fewer number of parameters than Auto-Keras' models. Benchmarked on GPU, Manas' models train 30.3% to 641.6% faster than Auto-Keras' models. Md Johirul Islam, Rangeet Pan, Hridesh Rajan |
ICSE | 2 |
| 2020 | Repairing deep neural networks: fix patterns and challengesabstractSignificant interest in applying Deep Neural Network (DNN) has fueled the need to support engineering of software that uses DNNs. Repairing software that uses DNNs is one such unmistakable SE need where automated tools could be beneficial; however, we do not fully understand challenges to repairing and patterns that are utilized when manually repairing DNNs. What challenges should automated repair tools address? What are the repair patterns whose automation could help developers? Which repair patterns should be assigned a higher priority for building automated bug repair tools? This work presents a comprehensive study of bug fix patterns to address these questions. We have studied 415 repairs from Stack Overflow and 555 repairs from GitHub for five popular deep learning libraries Caffe, Keras, Tensorflow, Theano, and Torch to understand challenges in repairs and bug repair patterns. Our key findings reveal that DNN bug fix patterns are distinctive compared to traditional bug fix patterns; the most common bug fix patterns are fixing data dimension and neural network connectivity; DNN bug fixes have the potential to introduce adversarial vulnerabilities; DNN bug fixes frequently introduce new bugs; and DNN bug localization, reuse of trained model, and coping with frequent releases are major challenges faced by developers when fixing bugs. We also contribute a benchmark of 667 DNN (bug, repair) instances. Md Johirul Islam, Rangeet Pan, Hridesh Rajan |
ICSE | 1 |
| 2019 | Boa meets python: a boa dataset of data science software in python languageabstractThe popularity of Python programming language has surged in recent years due to its increasing usage in Data Science. The availability of Python repositories in Github presents an opportunity for mining software repository research, e.g., suggesting the best practices in developing Data Science applications, identifying bug-patterns, recommending code enhancements, etc. To enable this research, we have created a new dataset that includes 1,558 mature Github projects that develop Python software for Data Science tasks. By analyzing the metadata and code, we have included the projects in our dataset which use a diverse set of machine learning libraries and managed by a variety of users and organizations. The dataset is made publicly available through Boa infrastructure both as a collection of raw projects as well as in a processed form that could be used for performing large scale analysis using Boa language. We also present two initial applications to demonstrate the potential of the dataset that could be leveraged by the community. Sumon Biswas, Md Johirul Islam, Yijia Huang, Hridesh Rajan |
MSR | 2 |
| 2019 | A comprehensive study on deep learning bug characteristicsabstractDeep learning has gained substantial popularity in recent years. Developers mainly rely on libraries and tools to add deep learning capabilities to their software. What kinds of bugs are frequently found in such software? What are the root causes of such bugs? What impacts do such bugs have? Which stages of deep learning pipeline are more bug prone? Are there any antipatterns? Understanding such characteristics of bugs in deep learning software has the potential to foster the development of better deep learning platforms, debugging mechanisms, development practices, and encourage the development of analysis and verification frameworks. Therefore, we study 2716 high-quality posts from Stack Overflow and 500 bug fix commits from Github about five popular deep learning libraries Caffe, Keras, Tensorflow, Theano, and Torch to understand the types of bugs, root causes of bugs, impacts of bugs, bug-prone stage of deep learning pipeline as well as whether there are some common antipatterns found in this buggy software. The key findings of our study include: data bug and logic bug are the most severe bug types in deep learning software appearing more than 48% of the times, major root causes of these bugs are Incorrect Model Parameter (IPS) and Structural Inefficiency (SI) showing up more than 43% of the times.We have also found that the bugs in the usage of deep learning libraries have some common antipatterns. Md Johirul Islam, Rangeet Pan, Hridesh Rajan |
ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE | 1 |