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

Anunay Amar

dblp:242/3893 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2019
—ORCID · none

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 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
1 paper
Empirical software engineering · 39% Debugging and program repair · 30% Software testing · 30%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Debugging and program repair
fault localization
0.412019
Mining historical test logs to predict bugs and localize faults in the test logs · ICSE 2019
Empirical software engineering
software defect prediction
0.412019
Mining historical test logs to predict bugs and localize faults in the test logs · ICSE 2019
Software testing › software testing evaluation › test result analysis
test log analysis
0.412019
Mining historical test logs to predict bugs and localize faults in the test logs · ICSE 2019
Empirical software engineering
mining software repositories
0.112019
Mining historical test logs to predict bugs and localize faults in the test logs · ICSE 2019

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

information retrieval · 0.4TF-IDF · 0.4KNN · 0.4
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2019 Mining historical test logs to predict bugs and localize faults in the test logs
abstract
Software testing is an integral part of modern software development. However, test runs can produce thousands of lines of logged output that make it difficult to find the cause of a fault in the logs. This problem is exacerbated by environmental failures that distract from product faults. In this paper we present techniques with the goal of capturing the maximum number of product faults, while flagging the minimum number of log lines for inspection. We observe that the location of a fault in a log should be contained in the lines of a failing test log. In contrast, a passing test log should not contain the lines related to a failure. Lines that occur in both a passing and failing log introduce noise when attempting to find the fault in a failing log. We introduce an approach where we remove the lines that occur in the passing log from the failing log. After removing these lines, we use information retrieval techniques to flag the most probable lines for investigation. We modify TF-IDF to identify the most relevant log lines related to past product failures. We then vectorize the logs and develop an exclusive version of KNN to identify which logs are likely to lead to product faults and which lines are the most probable indication of the failure. Our best approach, LogFaultFlagger finds 89% of the total faults and flags less than 1% of the total failed log lines for inspection. LogFaultFlagger drastically outperforms the previous work CAM. We implemented LogFaultFlagger as a tool at Ericsson where it presents fault prediction summaries to base station testers.
Anunay Amar, Peter C. Rigby
ICSE1