Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Piramanayagam Arumuga Nainar
dblp:77/2966
· DBLP profile ↗
3ranked-venue papers
2as first author
0since 2021 · last 2010
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 3 · 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
3 papers |
Debugging and program repair · 56% Program analysis · 23% Concurrent programming · 15% |
Topics — the 6 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Debugging and program repair › fault localization
statistical debugging |
0.2 | 2 | 2010 | Adaptive bug isolation · ICSE (1) 2010 Statistical debugging using compound boolean predicates · ISSTA 2007 |
Program analysis
dynamic analysis |
0.1 | 2 | 2010 | Adaptive bug isolation · ICSE (1) 2010 Statistical debugging using compound boolean predicates · ISSTA 2007 |
Debugging and program repair
fault localization |
0.1 | 1 | 2010 | Adaptive bug isolation · ICSE (1) 2010 |
Concurrent programming
concurrency bugs |
0.1 | 1 | 2008 | Finding and Reproducing Heisenbugs in Concurrent Programs · OSDI 2008 |
Software testing › software reliability
failure prediction |
0.0 | 1 | 2010 | Adaptive bug isolation · ICSE (1) 2010 |
Debugging and program repair
bug reproduction |
0.0 | 1 | 2008 | Finding and Reproducing Heisenbugs in Concurrent Programs · OSDI 2008 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
statistical modeling · 0.1control-dependence graph search · 0.1binary instrumentation · 0.1three-valued logic · 0.1statistical estimation · 0.1machine learning · 0.1
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | Adaptive bug isolationabstractStatistical debugging uses lightweight instrumentation and statistical models to identify program behaviors that are strongly predictive of failure. However, most software is mostly correct; nearly all monitored behaviors are poor predictors of failure. We propose an adaptive monitoring strategy that mitigates the overhead associated with monitoring poor failure predictors. We begin by monitoring a small portion of the program, then automatically refine instrumentation over time to zero in on bugs. We formulate this approach as a search on the control-dependence graph of the program. We present and evaluate various heuristics that can be used for this search. We also discuss the construction of a binary instrumentor for incorporating the feedback loop into post-deployment monitoring. Performance measurements show that adaptive bug isolation yields an average performance overhead of 1% for a class of large applications, as opposed to 87% for realistic sampling-based instrumentation and 300% for complete binary instrumentation. Piramanayagam Arumuga Nainar, Ben Liblit |
ICSE (1) | 1 |
| 2008 | Finding and Reproducing Heisenbugs in Concurrent Programs
Madan Musuvathi, Shaz Qadeer, Thomas Ball 0001, Gérard Basler, Piramanayagam Arumuga Nainar, Iulian Neamtiu |
OSDI | 5 |
| 2007 | Statistical debugging using compound boolean predicatesabstractStatistical debugging uses dynamic instrumentation and machine learning to identify predicates on program state that are strongly predictive of program failure. Prior approaches have only considered simple, atomic predicates such as the directions of branches or the return values of function calls. We enrich the predicate vocabulary by adding complex Boolean formulae derived from these simple predicates. We draw upon three-valued logic, static program structure, and statistical estimation techniques to efficiently sift through large numbers of candidate Boolean predicate formulae. We present qualitative and quantitative evidence that complex predicates are practical, precise, and informative. Furthermore, we demonstrate that our approach is robust in the face of incomplete data provided by the sparse random sampling that typifies postdeployment statistical debugging. Piramanayagam Arumuga Nainar, Jake Rosin, Ben Liblit |
ISSTA | 1 |