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

David van der Leij

dblp:297/4065 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2021
—ORCID · none

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 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
Software maintenance and evolution · 77% Empirical software engineering · 23%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Software maintenance and evolution
refactoring
0.512021
Data-driven extract method recommendations: a study at ING · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2021
Empirical software engineering › software engineering practice
industrial software engineering
0.112021
Data-driven extract method recommendations: a study at ING · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2021

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

machine learning · 0.5code metrics · 0.5
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2021 Data-driven extract method recommendations: a study at ING
abstract
The sound identification of refactoring opportunities is still an open problem in software engineering. Recent studies have shown the effectiveness of machine learning models in recommending methods that should undergo different refactoring operations. In this work, we experiment with such approaches to identify methods that should undergo an Extract Method refactoring, in the context of ING, a large financial organization. More specifically, we (i) compare the code metrics distributions, which are used as features by the models, between open-source and ING systems, (ii) measure the accuracy of different machine learning models in recommending Extract Method refactorings, (iii) compare the recommendations given by the models with the opinions of ING experts. Our results show that the feature distributions of ING systems and open-source systems are somewhat different, that machine learning models can recommend Extract Method refactorings with high accuracy, and that experts tend to agree with most of the recommendations of the model.
David van der Leij, Jasper Binda, Robbert van Dalen, Pieter Vallen, Yaping Luo, Mauricio Finavaro Aniche
ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE1