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

Devesh Goyal

dblp:140/7122 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as 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 · 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 maintenance and evolution · 77% Software testing · 23%

Topics — the 1 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Software maintenance and evolution › software quality assurance
software quality prediction
0.212015
Predicting field reliability · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2015

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

mathematical models · 0.2empirical measurement · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2015 Predicting field reliability
abstract
The objective of the work described is to accurately predict, as early as possible in the software lifecycle, how reliably a new software release will behave in the field. The initiative is based on a set of innovative mathematical models that have consistently shown a high correlation between key in-process metrics and our primary customer experience metric, SWDPMH (Software Defects per Million Hours [usage] per Month). We have focused on the three primary dimensions of testing – incoming, fixed, and backlog bugs. All of the key predictive metrics described here are empirically-derived, and in specific quantitative terms have not previously been documented in the software engineering/quality literature. A key part of this work is the empirical determination of the precision of the measurements of the primary predictive variables, and the determination of the prediction (outcome) error. These error values enable teams to accurately gauge bug finding and fixing progress, week by week, during the primary test period.
Pete Rotella, Sunita Chulani, Devesh Goyal
ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE3