Hila Reicher

dblp:423/9608 · also Hila Cohen 0001 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
2as first author
0since 2021 · last 2015
—ORCID · none

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 2 · 2 first-author

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
2 papers
Program analysis · 58% Software testing · 32% Empirical software engineering · 10%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Program analysis
specification mining
0.422015
Have We Seen Enough Traces? (T) · ASE 2015
The confidence in our k-tails · ASE 2014
Software testing
test generation
0.422015
Have We Seen Enough Traces? (T) · ASE 2015
The confidence in our k-tails · ASE 2014
Program analysis › specification mining
dynamic specification mining
0.212015
Have We Seen Enough Traces? (T) · ASE 2015
Program analysis › dynamic analysis
execution traces
0.122015
Have We Seen Enough Traces? (T) · ASE 2015
The confidence in our k-tails · ASE 2014
Empirical software engineering
mining software repositories
0.122015
Have We Seen Enough Traces? (T) · ASE 2015
The confidence in our k-tails · ASE 2014

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

k-tails · 0.4synoptic · 0.2probabilistic framework · 0.2probabilistic analysis · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2015 Have We Seen Enough Traces? (T)
abstract
Dynamic specification mining extracts candidate specifications from logs of execution traces. Existing algorithms differ in the kinds of traces they take as input and in the kinds of candidate specification they present as output. One challenge common to all approaches relates to the faithfulness of the mining results: how can we be confident that the extracted specifications faithfully characterize the program we investigate? Since producing and analyzing traces is costly, how would we know we have seen enough traces? And, how would we know we have not wasted resources and seen too many of them?In this paper we address these important questions by presenting a novel, black box, probabilistic framework based on a notion of log completeness, and by applying it to three different well-known specification mining algorithms from the literature: k-Tails, Synoptic, and mining of scenario-based triggers and effects. Extensive evaluation over 24 models taken from 9 different sources shows the soundness, generalizability, and usefulness of the framework and its contribution to the state-of-the-art in dynamic specification mining.
Hila Reicher, Shahar Maoz
ASE1
2014 The confidence in our k-tails
abstract
k-Tails is a popular algorithm for extracting a candidate behavioral model from a log of execution traces. The usefulness of k-Tails depends on the quality of its input log, which may include too few traces to build a representative model, or too many traces, whose analysis is a waste of resources. Given a set of traces, how can one be confident that it includes enough, but not too many, traces? While many have used the k-Tails algorithm, no previous work has yet investigated this question.
Hila Reicher, Shahar Maoz
ASE1