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

Magnus Alexandersson

dblp:16/1591 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2007
—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% Empirical software engineering · 23%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Software maintenance and evolution › bug triage
duplicate bug report detection
0.112007
Detection of Duplicate Defect Reports Using Natural Language Processing · ICSE 2007
Empirical software engineering
mining software repositories
0.012007
Detection of Duplicate Defect Reports Using Natural Language Processing · ICSE 2007

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

text similarity · 0.1natural language processing · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2007 Detection of Duplicate Defect Reports Using Natural Language Processing
abstract
Defect reports are generated from various testing and development activities in software engineering. Sometimes two reports are submitted that describe the same problem, leading to duplicate reports. These reports are mostly written in structured natural language, and as such, it is hard to compare two reports for similarity with formal methods. In order to identify duplicates, we investigate using natural language processing (NLP) techniques to support the identification. A prototype tool is developed and evaluated in a case study analyzing defect reports at Sony Ericsson mobile communications. The evaluation shows that about 2/3 of the duplicates can possibly be found using the NLP techniques. Different variants of the techniques provide only minor result differences, indicating a robust technology. User testing shows that the overall attitude towards the technique is positive and that it has a growth potential.
Per Runeson, Magnus Alexandersson, Oskar Nyholm
ICSE2