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

Jeff Mellen

dblp:73/4261 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2003
—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 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Software testing › test generation
test suite generation
0.012003
Improving Test Suites via Operational Abstraction · ICSE 2003
Software testing › regression testing
test suite reduction
0.012003
Improving Test Suites via Operational Abstraction · ICSE 2003
Software testing › test coverage
code coverage
0.012003
Improving Test Suites via Operational Abstraction · ICSE 2003

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

operational difference technique · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2003 Improving Test Suites via Operational Abstraction
abstract
This paper presents the operational difference technique for generating, augmenting, and minimizing test suites. The technique is analogous to structural code coverage techniques, but it operates in the semantic domain of program properties rather than the syntactic domain of program text. The operational difference technique automatically selects test cases; it assumes only the existence of a source of test cases. The technique dynamically generates operational abstractions (which describe observed behavior and are syntactically identical to formal specifications)from test suite executions. Test suites can be generated by adding cases until the operational abstraction stops changing. The resulting test suites are as small, and detect as many faults, as suites with 100% branch coverage, and are better at detecting certain common faults. This paper also presents the area and stacking techniques for comparing test suite generation strategies; these techniques avoid bias due to test suite size.
Michael Harder, Jeff Mellen, Michael D. Ernst
ICSE2