Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Rahul N. Iyer

dblp:239/7796 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2021
0000-0002-0929-7459ORCID · corroborated

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 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.

Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
2 papers
Collaborative and social computing · 40% Personal fabrication and tangible interfaces · 30% User interface design and tools · 30%
Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Empirical software engineering · 50% Software maintenance and evolution · 50%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Empirical software engineering
mining software repositories
0.512021
Effects of Personality Traits on Pull Request Acceptance · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2021
Software maintenance and evolution › code review › code review analysis
pull request acceptance
0.512021
Effects of Personality Traits on Pull Request Acceptance · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2021
User interface design and tools › creative tools
drawing assistance
0.412019
Automating the Intentional Encoding of Human-Designable Markers · CHI 2019

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

statistical analysis · 1.0big five personality traits · 1.0user study · 0.4tree search · 0.4dynamic programming · 0.4
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2021 Effects of Personality Traits on Pull Request Acceptance
abstract
In this paper, we examine the influence of personality traits of developers on the pull request evaluation process in GitHub. We first replicate Tsayet al.’s work that examined the influence of social factors (e.g., ‘social distance’) and technical factors (e.g., test file inclusion) for evaluating contributions, and then extend it with personality based factors. In particular, we extract the Big Five personality traits (Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism) of developers from their online digital footprints, such as pull request comments. We analyze the personality traits of 16,935 active developers from 1,860 projects and compare their relative importance to other non-personality factors from past research, in the pull request evaluation process. We find that pull requests from authors (requesters) who are more open and conscientious, but less extroverted, have a higher chance of approval. Furthermore, pull requests that are closed by developers (closers) who are more conscientious, extroverted, and neurotic, have a higher likelihood of acceptance. The larger the difference in personality traits between the requester and the closer, the more positive effect it has on pull request acceptance. Finally, although the effect of personality traits is significant and comparable to technical factors, we find that social factors are still more influential on the likelihood of pull request acceptance.
Rahul N. Iyer, S. Alex Yun, Meiyappan Nagappan, Jesse Hoey
IEEE Trans. Software Eng.1
2019 Automating the Intentional Encoding of Human-Designable Markers
abstract
Recent work established that it is possible for human artists to encode information into hand-drawn markers, but it is difficult to do when simultaneously maintaining aesthetic quality. We present two methods for relieving the mental burden associated with encoding, while allowing an artist to draw as freely as possible. A 'Helper Overlay' guides the artist with real-time feedback indicating where visual features should be added or removed, and an 'Autocomplete Tool' directly adds necessary features to the drawing for the artist to touch up. Both methods are enabled by a two-part algorithm that uses a tree-search for finding 'major' changes and a dynamic programming method for finding the minimum number of 'minor' changes. A 24-person study demonstrates that a majority of participants prefer both tools over previous methods of manual encoding, with the Helper Overlay being the more popular of the two.
Joshua D. A. Jung, Rahul N. Iyer, Daniel Vogel 0001
CHI2