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

Shien Wee Ng

dblp:205/2727 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2021
0000-0002-4673-0397ORCID · corroborated

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 2 · 1 since 2021Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 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.

Network and information security
1 paper
Systems and software security · 100%
Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Program analysis · 100%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Systems and software security
vulnerability prediction
0.512021
Automatic Feature Learning for Predicting Vulnerable Software Components · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2021
Systems and software security › vulnerability prediction
vulnerable component prediction
0.512021
Automatic Feature Learning for Predicting Vulnerable Software Components · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2021
Program analysis
code representation learning
0.512021
Automatic Feature Learning for Predicting Vulnerable Software Components · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2021
Systems and software security › vulnerability discovery
software vulnerability detection
0.112021
Automatic Feature Learning for Predicting Vulnerable Software Components · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2021

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

long short-term memory · 1.0deep learning · 1.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2021 Automatic Feature Learning for Predicting Vulnerable Software Components
abstract
Code flaws or vulnerabilities are prevalent in software systems and can potentially cause a variety of problems including deadlock, hacking, information loss and system failure. A variety of approaches have been developed to try and detect the most likely locations of such code vulnerabilities in large code bases. Most of them rely on manually designing code features (e.g., complexity metrics or frequencies of code tokens) that represent the characteristics of the potentially problematic code to locate. However, all suffer from challenges in sufficiently capturing both semantic and syntactic representation of source code, an important capability for building accurate prediction models. In this paper, we describe a new approach, built upon the powerful deep learning Long Short Term Memory model, to automatically learn both semantic and syntactic features of code. Our evaluation on 18 Android applications and the Firefox application demonstrates that the prediction power obtained from our learned features is better than what is achieved by state of the art vulnerability prediction models, for both within-project prediction and cross-project prediction.
Khanh Hoa Dam, Truyen Tran 0001, Trang Pham, Shien Wee Ng, John C. Grundy, Aditya Ghose
IEEE Trans. Software Eng.4
2019 Lessons learned from using a deep tree-based model for software defect prediction in practice
abstract
Defects are common in software systems and cause many problems for software users. Different methods have been developed to make early prediction about the most likely defective modules in large codebases. Most focus on designing features (e.g. complexity metrics) that correlate with potentially defective code. Those approaches however do not sufficiently capture the syntax and multiple levels of semantics of source code, a potentially important capability for building accurate prediction models. In this paper, we report on our experience of deploying a new deep learning tree-based defect prediction model in practice. This model is built upon the tree-structured Long Short Term Memory network which directly matches with the Abstract Syntax Tree representation of source code. We discuss a number of lessons learned from developing the model and evaluating it on two datasets, one from open source projects contributed by our industry partner Samsung and the other from the public PROMISE repository.
Khanh Hoa Dam, Trang Pham, Shien Wee Ng, Truyen Tran 0001, John C. Grundy, Aditya Ghose, Taeksu Kim, Chul-Joo Kim
MSR3