EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Aram Hovsepyan
dblp:31/4943
· DBLP profile ↗
4ranked-venue papers
2as first author
0since 2021 · last 2016
—ORCID · none
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 · 1Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 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 |
Empirical software engineering · 100% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Systems and software security
vulnerability prediction |
0.2 | 1 | 2014 | Predicting Vulnerable Software Components via Text Mining · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2014 |
Systems and software security › vulnerability prediction
vulnerable component prediction |
0.2 | 1 | 2014 | Predicting Vulnerable Software Components via Text Mining · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2014 |
Empirical software engineering
mining software repositories |
0.1 | 1 | 2014 | Predicting Vulnerable Software Components via Text Mining · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2014 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
text mining · 0.4machine learning · 0.4
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | Is Newer Always Better?: The Case of Vulnerability Prediction ModelsabstractFinding security vulnerabilities in the source code as early as possible is becoming more and more essential. In this respect, vulnerability prediction models have the potential to help the security assurance activities by identifying code locations that deserve the most attention. In this paper, we investigate whether prediction models behave like milk (i.e., they turn with time) or wine (i.e., the improve with time) when used to predict future vulnerabilities. Our findings indicate that the recall values are largely in favor of predictors based on older versions. However, the better recall comes at the price of much higher file inspection ratio values. Aram Hovsepyan, Riccardo Scandariato, Wouter Joosen |
ESEM | 1 |
| 2014 | Towards managing variability in the safety design of an automotive hall effect sensorabstractThis paper discusses the merits and challenges of adopting software product line engineering (SPLE) as the main development process for an automotive Hall Effect sensor. This versatile component is integrated into a number of automotive applications with varying safety requirements (e.g., windshield wipers and brake pedals). Dimitri Van Landuyt, Steven Op de beeck, Aram Hovsepyan, Sam Michiels, Wouter Joosen, Sven Meynckens, Gjalt de Jong, Olivier Barais, Mathieu Acher |
SPLC | 3 |
| 2014 | Predicting Vulnerable Software Components via Text MiningabstractThis paper presents an approach based on machine learning to predict which components of a software application contain security vulnerabilities. The approach is based on text mining the source code of the components. Namely, each component is characterized as a series of terms contained in its source code, with the associated frequencies. These features are used to forecast whether each component is likely to contain vulnerabilities. In an exploratory validation with 20 Android applications, we discovered that a dependable prediction model can be built. Such model could be useful to prioritize the validation activities, e.g., to identify the components needing special scrutiny. Riccardo Scandariato, James Walden, Aram Hovsepyan, Wouter Joosen |
IEEE Trans. Software Eng. | 3 |
| 2011 | Preserving Aspects via Automation: A Maintainability StudyabstractThis paper presents an empirical study comparing two alternatives for generating code from aspect-oriented models. In an aspect "disrupting" process, an object oriented implementation in Java is automatically generated from domain specific models, comprising a mix of UML (for core functionality) and DSLs (for qualities like security and perfor mance). In an aspect "preserving" process, an aspect oriented implementation in AspectJ is automatically generated from the same models. In both alternatives, a number of subjects are asked to perform several maintenance tasks requiring the addition and improvement of functionality. The results show that, in most of the cases, the AO alternative provides for shorter maintenance cycles. Aram Hovsepyan, Riccardo Scandariato, Stefan Van Baelen, Wouter Joosen, Serge Demeyer |
ESEM | 1 |