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

Joonmo Yang

dblp:337/0818 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2022
0000-0002-4845-5560ORCID · reported

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 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
1 paper
Software maintenance and evolution · 61% Debugging and program repair · 39%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Software maintenance and evolution › code review
automated code review
0.612022
Code Understanding Linter to Detect Variable Misuse · ASE 2022
Software maintenance and evolution
code review
0.612022
Code Understanding Linter to Detect Variable Misuse · ASE 2022
Debugging and program repair › automated debugging
variable misuse detection
0.612022
Code Understanding Linter to Detect Variable Misuse · ASE 2022
Debugging and program repair
fault localization
0.212022
Code Understanding Linter to Detect Variable Misuse · ASE 2022

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

language model of code · 0.6
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2022 Code Understanding Linter to Detect Variable Misuse
abstract
We share our experience in developing Code Understanding Linter, an automated code review tool based on language models of code. We introduce several ideas to make the tool be more practical, including combining two different language models, filtering meaningless outputs from the model, and generating developer-friendly diagnosis messages by interpreting the outputs from the model. On top of those ideas, we describe the design and implementation of an automated code review tool to detect variable-misuse defects in Python codes and suggest how to fix them. We evaluated the tool with a set of code repositories in Samsung Electronics, which contains real-world Python codes. Our experiment proves that our tool can discover hidden defects in the real-world codes, but the false positive rate is far higher than we expected. After manually investigating every false positives, we discuss the limitations of the language models and possible solutions.
Yeonhee Ryou, Sangwoo Joh, Joonmo Yang, Youil Kim
ASE3