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

Eric S. Liu

dblp:351/7203 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2023
0000-0002-3264-9782ORCID · reported

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 first-author · 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 · 67% Empirical software engineering · 33%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Empirical software engineering
mining software repositories
0.712023
Refactoring in Computational Notebooks · ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 2023
Software maintenance and evolution
refactoring
0.712023
Refactoring in Computational Notebooks · ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 2023
Software maintenance and evolution
technical debt
0.712023
Refactoring in Computational Notebooks · ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 2023

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

repository mining · 0.7empirical study · 0.7
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2023 Refactoring in Computational Notebooks
abstract
Due to the exploratory nature of computational notebook development, a notebook can be extensively evolved even though it is small, potentially incurring substantial technical debt. Indeed, in interview studies notebook authors have attested to performing ongoing tidying and big cleanups. However, many notebook authors are not trained as software developers, and environments like JupyterLab possess few features to aid notebook maintenance. As software refactoring is traditionally a critical tool for reducing technical debt, we sought to better understand the unique and growing ecology of computational notebooks by investigating the refactoring of public Jupyter notebooks. We randomly selected 15,000 Jupyter notebooks hosted on GitHub and studied 200 with meaningful commit histories. We found that notebook authors do refactor, favoring a few basic classic refactorings as well as those involving the notebook cell construct. Those with a computing background refactored differently than others, but not more so. Exploration-focused notebooks had a unique refactoring profile compared to more exposition-focused notebooks. Authors more often refactored their code as they went along, rather than deferring maintenance to big cleanups. These findings point to refactoring being intrinsic to notebook development.
Eric S. Liu, Dylan Lukes, William G. Griswold
ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol.1