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

Stratos Kourtzanidis

dblp:278/7882 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2022
—ORCID · none

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 2 · 1 first-author · 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 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Empirical software engineering › developer studies › developer expertise
developer expertise identification
0.412020
RepoSkillMiner: Identifying software expertise from GitHub repositories using Natural Language Processing · ASE 2020
Empirical software engineering
mining software repositories
0.412020
RepoSkillMiner: Identifying software expertise from GitHub repositories using Natural Language Processing · ASE 2020

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

natural language processing · 0.4named entity recognition · 0.4
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2022 A fine-grained data set and analysis of tangling in bug fixing commits
abstract
Abstract Context Tangled commits are changes to software that address multiple concerns at once. For researchers interested in bugs, tangled commits mean that they actually study not only bugs, but also other concerns irrelevant for the study of bugs. Objective We want to improve our understanding of the prevalence of tangling and the types of changes that are tangled within bug fixing commits. Methods We use a crowd sourcing approach for manual labeling to validate which changes contribute to bug fixes for each line in bug fixing commits. Each line is labeled by four participants. If at least three participants agree on the same label, we have consensus. Results We estimate that between 17% and 32% of all changes in bug fixing commits modify the source code to fix the underlying problem. However, when we only consider changes to the production code files this ratio increases to 66% to 87%. We find that about 11% of lines are hard to label leading to active disagreements between participants. Due to confirmed tangling and the uncertainty in our data, we estimate that 3% to 47% of data is noisy without manual untangling, depending on the use case. Conclusion Tangled commits have a high prevalence in bug fixes and can lead to a large amount of noise in the data. Prior research indicates that this noise may alter results. As researchers, we should be skeptics and assume that unvalidated data is likely very noisy, until proven otherwise.
Steffen Herbold, Alexander Trautsch, Benjamin Ledel, Alireza Aghamohammadi, Taher Ahmed Ghaleb, Kuljit Kaur Chahal, Tim Bossenmaier, Bhaveet Nagaria, Philip Makedonski, Matin Nili Ahmadabadi, Kristóf Szabados, Helge Spieker, Matej Madeja, Nathaniel Hoy, Valentina Lenarduzzi, Shangwen Wang, Gema Rodríguez-Pérez, Ricardo Colomo-Palacios, Roberto Verdecchia, Paramvir Singh, Yihao Qin, Debasish Chakroborti, Willard Davis, Vijay Walunj, Diego Marcilio, Omar Alam, Abdullah Aldaeej, Idan Amit, Burak Turhan, Simon Eismann, Anna-Katharina Wickert, Ivano Malavolta, Matús Sulír, Fatemeh Hendijani Fard, Austin Z. Henley, Stratos Kourtzanidis, Eray Tüzün, Christoph Treude, Simin Maleki Shamasbi, Ivan Pashchenko, Marvin Wyrich, James C. Davis 0001, Alexander Serebrenik, Ella Albrecht, Ethem Utku Aktas, Daniel Strüber 0001, Johannes Erbel
Empir. Softw. Eng.37
2020 RepoSkillMiner: Identifying software expertise from GitHub repositories using Natural Language Processing
abstract
A GitHub profile is becoming an essential part of a developer's resume enabling HR departments to extract someone's expertise, through automated analysis of his/her contribution to open-source projects. At the same time, having clear insights on the technologies used in a project can be very beneficial for resource allocation and project maintainability planning. In the literature, one can identify various approaches for identifying expertise on programming languages, based on the projects that developer contributed to. In this paper, we move one step further and introduce an approach (accompanied by a tool) to identify low-level expertise on particular software frameworks and technologies apart, relying solely on GitHub data, using the GitHub API and Natural Language Processing (NLP)---using the Microsoft Language Understanding Intelligent Service (LUIS). In particular, we developed an NLP model in LUIS for named-entity recognition for three (3) .NET technologies and two (2) front-end frameworks. Our analysis is based upon specific commit contents, in terms of the exact code chunks, which the committer added or changed. We evaluate the precision, recall and f-measure for the derived technologies/frameworks, by conducting a batch test in LUIS and report the results. The proposed approach is demonstrated through a fully functional web application named RepoSkillMiner. Tool Links : Video, Code Repo, Application, Validation Dataset
Stratos Kourtzanidis, Alexander Chatzigeorgiou, Apostolos Ampatzoglou
ASE1