Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Danyi Feng
dblp:276/3377
· DBLP profile ↗
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2023
—ORCID · conflict
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 2 · 1 since 2021
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
2 papers |
Empirical software engineering · 89% Software maintenance and evolution · 11% |
Topics — the 5 heaviest of 7, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Empirical software engineering › mining software repositories › defect prediction
just-in-time defect prediction |
1.1 | 2 | 2023 | Cross-Project Online Just-In-Time Software Defect Prediction · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2023 An investigation of cross-project learning in online just-in-time software defect prediction · ICSE 2020 |
Empirical software engineering › mining software repositories › defect prediction
cross-project defect prediction |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Cross-Project Online Just-In-Time Software Defect Prediction · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2023 |
Empirical software engineering › mining software repositories
defect prediction |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Cross-Project Online Just-In-Time Software Defect Prediction · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2023 |
Empirical software engineering
software defect prediction |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | An investigation of cross-project learning in online just-in-time software defect prediction · ICSE 2020 |
Empirical software engineering
mining software repositories |
0.1 | 1 | 2020 | An investigation of cross-project learning in online just-in-time software defect prediction · ICSE 2020 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
online learning · 1.1machine learning · 1.1
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | Cross-Project Online Just-In-Time Software Defect PredictionabstractCross-Project (CP) Just-In-Time Software Defect Prediction (JIT-SDP) makes use of CP data to overcome the lack of data necessary to train well performing JIT-SDP classifiers at the beginning of software projects. However, such approaches have never been investigated in realistic online learning scenarios, where Within-Project (WP) software changes naturally arrive over time and can be used to automatically update the classifiers. We provide the first investigation of when and to what extent CP data are useful for JIT-SDP in such realistic scenarios. For that, we propose three different online CP JIT-SDP approaches that can be updated with incoming CP and WP training examples over time. We also collect data on 9 proprietary software projects and use 10 open source software projects to analyse these approaches. We find that training classifiers with incoming CP+WP data can lead to absolute improvements in G-mean of up to 53.89% and up to 35.02% at the initial stage of the projects compared to classifiers using WP-only and CP-only data, respectively. Using CP+WP data was also shown to be beneficial after a large number of WP data were received. Using CP data to supplement WP data helped the classifiers to reduce or prevent large drops in predictive performance that may occur over time, leading to absolute G-Mean improvements of up to 37.35% and 48.16% compared to WP-only and CP-only data during such periods, respectively. During periods of stable predictive performance, absolute improvements were of up to 29.03% and up to 41.25% compared to WP-only and CP-only classifiers, respectively. Our results highlight the importance of using both CP and WP data together in realistic online JIT-SDP scenarios. Sadia Tabassum, Leandro L. Minku, Danyi Feng |
IEEE Trans. Software Eng. | 3 |
| 2020 | An investigation of cross-project learning in online just-in-time software defect predictionabstractJust-In-Time Software Defect Prediction (JIT-SDP) is concerned with predicting whether software changes are defect-inducing or clean based on machine learning classifiers. Building such classifiers requires a sufficient amount of training data that is not available at the beginning of a software project. Cross-Project (CP) JIT-SDP can overcome this issue by using data from other projects to build the classifier, achieving similar (not better) predictive performance to classifiers trained on Within-Project (WP) data. However, such approaches have never been investigated in realistic online learning scenarios, where WP software changes arrive continuously over time and can be used to update the classifiers. It is unknown to what extent CP data can be helpful in such situation. In particular, it is unknown whether CP data are only useful during the very initial phase of the project when there is little WP data, or whether they could be helpful for extended periods of time. This work thus provides the first investigation of when and to what extent CP data are useful for JIT-SDP in a realistic online learning scenario. For that, we develop three different CP JIT-SDP approaches that can operate in online mode and be updated with both incoming CP and WP training examples over time. We also collect 2048 commits from three software repositories being developed by a software company over the course of 9 to 10 months, and use 19,8468 commits from 10 active open source GitHub projects being developed over the course of 6 to 14 years. The study shows that training classifiers with incoming CP+WP data can lead to improvements in G-mean of up to 53.90% compared to classifiers using only WP data at the initial stage of the projects. For the open source projects, which have been running for longer periods of time, using CP data to supplement WP data also helped the classifiers to reduce or prevent large drops in predictive performance that may occur over time, leading to up to around 40% better G-Mean during such periods. Such use of CP data was shown to be beneficial even after a large number of WP data were received, leading to overall G-means up to 18.5% better than those of WP classifiers. Sadia Tabassum, Leandro L. Minku, Danyi Feng, George G. Cabral, Liyan Song |
ICSE | 3 |