Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Karen J. Rothermel
dblp:51/3773
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2000
—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
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 testing · 100% |
Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Software testing
spreadsheet testing |
0.0 | 1 | 2000 | WYSIWYT testing in the spreadsheet paradigm: an empirical evaluation · ICSE 2000 |
Software testing
test adequacy |
0.0 | 1 | 2000 | WYSIWYT testing in the spreadsheet paradigm: an empirical evaluation · ICSE 2000 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
empirical evaluation · 0.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | WYSIWYT testing in the spreadsheet paradigm: an empirical evaluationabstractIs it possible to achieve some of the benefits of formal testing within the informal programming conventions of the spreadsheet paradigm? We have been working on an approach that attempts to do so via the development of a testing methodology for this paradigm. Our “What You See Is What You Test” (WYSIWYT) methodology supplements the convention by which spreadsheets provide automatic immediate visual feedback about values by providing automatic immediate visual feedback about “testedness”. In previous work we described this methodology; in this paper, we present empirical data about the methodology's effectiveness. Our results show that the use of the methodology was associated with significant improvement in testing effectiveness and efficiency even with no training on the theory of testing or test adequacy that the model implements. These results may be due at least in part to the fact that use of the methodology was associated with a significant reduction in overconfidence. Karen J. Rothermel, Curtis R. Cook, Margaret M. Burnett, Justin Schonfeld, Thomas R. G. Green, Gregg Rothermel |
ICSE | 1 |