Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Forrest Bice
dblp:56/9798
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2014
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 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.
| 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 › regression testing
test selection |
0.2 | 1 | 2014 | You Are the Only Possible Oracle: Effective Test Selection for End Users of Interactive Machine Learning Systems · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2014 |
Software testing
test oracle |
0.1 | 1 | 2014 | You Are the Only Possible Oracle: Effective Test Selection for End Users of Interactive Machine Learning Systems · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2014 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
user study · 0.2
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2014 | You Are the Only Possible Oracle: Effective Test Selection for End Users of Interactive Machine Learning SystemsabstractHow do you test a program when only a single user, with no expertise in software testing, is able to determine if the program is performing correctly? Such programs are common today in the form of machine-learned classifiers. We consider the problem of testing this common kind of machine-generated program when the only oracle is an end user: e.g., only you can determine if your email is properly filed. We present test selection methods that provide very good failure rates even for small test suites, and show that these methods work in both large-scale random experiments using a “gold standard” and in studies with real users. Our methods are inexpensive and largely algorithm-independent. Key to our methods is an exploitation of properties of classifiers that is not possible in traditional software testing. Our results suggest that it is plausible for time-pressured end users to interactively detect failures-even very hard-to-find failures-without wading through a large number of successful (and thus less useful) tests. We additionally show that some methods are able to find the arguably most difficult-to-detect faults of classifiers: cases where machine learning algorithms have high confidence in an incorrect result. Alex Groce, Todd Kulesza, Chaoqiang Zhang, Shalini Shamasunder, Margaret M. Burnett, Weng-Keen Wong, Simone Stumpf, Shubhomoy Das, Amber Shinsel, Forrest Bice, Kevin McIntosh |
IEEE Trans. Software Eng. | 10 |