Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Thomas D. White
dblp:200/1087
· DBLP profile ↗
4ranked-venue papers
2as first author
0since 2021 · last 2019
0000-0002-0228-8082ORCID · reported
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 4 · 2 first-authorArtificial intelligence and machine learning · 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
3 papers |
Software testing · 100% |
Topics — the 8 heaviest of 8, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Software testing
GUI testing |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Improving random GUI testing with image-based widget detection · ISSTA 2019 |
Software testing › GUI testing
widget detection |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Improving random GUI testing with image-based widget detection · ISSTA 2019 |
Software testing
mutation testing |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Code defenders: crowdsourcing effective tests and subtle mutants with a mutation testing game · ICSE 2017 |
Software testing › test quality
test suite quality |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Code defenders: crowdsourcing effective tests and subtle mutants with a mutation testing game · ICSE 2017 |
Software testing › test generation
search-based test generation |
0.2 | 1 | 2015 | Increasing the efficiency of search-based unit test generation using parameter control · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2015 |
Software testing › test generation
unit test generation |
0.2 | 1 | 2015 | Increasing the efficiency of search-based unit test generation using parameter control · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2015 |
Software testing › test generation
automated test generation |
0.1 | 1 | 2017 | Code defenders: crowdsourcing effective tests and subtle mutants with a mutation testing game · ICSE 2017 |
Software testing › test generation
test suite generation |
0.1 | 1 | 2015 | Increasing the efficiency of search-based unit test generation using parameter control · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2015 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
machine learning · 0.4image-based widget detection · 0.4gamification · 0.3crowdsourcing · 0.3mutation rate control · 0.2evolutionary algorithm · 0.2crossover rate control · 0.2
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | Improving random GUI testing with image-based widget detectionabstractGraphical User Interfaces (GUIs) are amongst the most common user interfaces, enabling interactions with applications through mouse movements and key presses. Tools for automated testing of programs through their GUI exist, however they usually rely on operating system or framework specific knowledge to interact with an application. Due to frequent operating system updates, which can remove required information, and a large variety of different GUI frameworks using unique underlying data structures, such tools rapidly become obsolete, Consequently, for an automated GUI test generation tool, supporting many frameworks and operating systems is impractical. We propose a technique for improving GUI testing by automatically identifying GUI widgets in screen shots using machine learning techniques. As training data, we generate randomized GUIs to automatically extract widget information. The resulting model provides guidance to GUI testing tools in environments not currently supported by deriving GUI widget information from screen shots only. In our experiments, we found that identifying GUI widgets in screen shots and using this information to guide random testing achieved a significantly higher branch coverage in 18 of 20 applications, with an average increase of 42.5% when compared to conventional random testing. Thomas D. White, Gordon Fraser 0001, Guy J. Brown |
ISSTA | 1 |
| 2017 | Code defenders: crowdsourcing effective tests and subtle mutants with a mutation testing gameabstractWriting good software tests is difficult and not every developer's favorite occupation. Mutation testing aims to help by seeding artificial faults (mutants) that good tests should identify, and test generation tools help by providing automatically generated tests. However, mutation tools tend to produce huge numbers of mutants, many of which are trivial, redundant, or semantically equivalent to the original program, automated test generation tools tend to produce tests that achieve good code coverage, but are otherwise weak and have no clear purpose. In this paper, we present an approach based on gamification and crowdsourcing to produce better software tests and mutants: The Code Defenders web-based game lets teams of players compete over a program, where attackers try to create subtle mutants, which the defenders try to counter by writing strong tests. Experiments in controlled and crowdsourced scenarios reveal that writing tests as part of the game is more enjoyable, and that playing Code Defenders results in stronger test suites and mutants than those produced by automated tools. José Miguel Rojas, Thomas D. White, Ben Clegg 0002, Gordon Fraser 0001 |
ICSE | 2 |
| 2015 | Increasing the efficiency of search-based unit test generation using parameter controlabstractAutomatically generating test suites with high coverage is of great importance to software engineers, but this process is hindered by the vast amount of parameters the tools use to generate tests. Developers usually lack knowledge about the workings of the tools that generate test suites to set the parameters to optimal values, and the optimal values usually change during runtime. Parameter Control automatically adapts parameters during test generation, and has shown to help solve this problem in other areas. To investigate any improvements parameter control could have in search-based generation of test suites, we adapted multiple methods of controlling mutation and crossover rate in EvoSuite, a tool that automatically generates unit test suites. Upon evaluation, clear benefits to controlling parameters were found, but surprisingly, controlling some parameters can sometimes be more harmful to the search than beneficial through increased computation costs. Thomas D. White |
ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE | 1 |
| 2015 | Parameter Control in Search-Based Generation of Unit Test Suites
David Paterson, Jonathan Turner, Thomas D. White, Gordon Fraser 0001 |
SSBSE | 3 |