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.

William R. Murray

dblp:44/6170 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
7ranked-venue papers
7as first author
0since 2021 · last 2011
0000-0001-5726-710XORCID · corroborated

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 4 · 4 first-authorGraphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 3 · 3 first-authorHuman-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 3 · 3 first-authorApplied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 3 · 3 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.

Artificial intelligence
2 papers
Knowledge representation and reasoning · 100%
Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
Learning and educational technologies · 100%
Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper
Computing education · 100%
Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Debugging and program repair · 100%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Learning and educational technologies
student modeling
0.011991
An Endorsement-based Approach to Student Modeling for Planner-controlled Tutors · IJCAI 1991
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning › cognitive modeling › cognitive architecture
blackboard architecture
0.011990
A Blackboard-based Dynamic Instructional Planner · AAAI 1990
Computing education
intelligent tutoring systems
0.011990
A Blackboard-based Dynamic Instructional Planner · AAAI 1990
Debugging and program repair
automated debugging
0.011985
Heuristic and Formal Methods in Automatic Program Debugging · IJCAI 1985

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

endorsement-based approach · 0.0blackboard architecture · 0.0heuristic methods · 0.0formal methods · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2011 Statistical Relational Learning in Student Modeling for Intelligent Tutoring Systems
William R. Murray
AIED1
2005 Breaking the ITS Monolith: a Hybrid Simulation and Tutoring Architecture for ITS
William R. Murray
AIED1
1998 A Practical Approach to Bayesian Student Modeling
William R. Murray
Intelligent Tutoring Systems1
1991 An Endorsement-based Approach to Student Modeling for Planner-controlled Tutors
William R. Murray
IJCAI1
1990 A Blackboard-based Dynamic Instructional Planner
William R. Murray
AAAI1
1987 Automatic program debugging for intelligent tutoring systems
abstract
Program debugging is an important part of the domain expertise required for intelligent tutoring systems that teach programming languages. This article explores the process by which student programs can be automatically debugged in order to increase the instructional capabilities of these systems. The research presented provides a methodology and implementation for the diagnosis and correction of nontrivial recursive programs. In this approach, recursive programs are debugged by repairing induction proofs in the Boyer‐Moore logic. The induction proofs constructed and debugged assert the computational équivalence of student programs to correct exemplar solutions. Exemplar solutions not only specify correct implementations but also provide correct code to replace buggy student code. Bugs in student code are repaired with heuristics that attempt to minimize the scope of repair. The automated debugging of student code is greatly complicated by the tremendous variability that arises in student solutions to nontrivial tasks. This variability can be coped with, and debugging performance improved, by explicit reasoning about computational semantics during the debugging process. This article supports these claims by discussing the design, implementation, and evaluation ofTalus,an automatic debugger for LISP programs, and by examining related work in automated program debugging. Talus relies on its abilities to reason about computational semantics to perform algorithm recognition, infer code teleology, and to automatically detectandcorrect nonsyntactic errors in student programs written in a restricted, but nontrivial, subset of LISP. Solutions can vary significantly in algorithm, functional decomposition, role of variables, data flow, control flow, values returned by functions, LISP primitives used, and identifiers used. Solutions can consist of multiple functions, each containing multiple bugs. Empiricial evaluation demonstrates that Talus achieves high performance in debugging widely varying student solutions to challenging tasks.
William R. Murray
Comput. Intell.1
1985 Heuristic and Formal Methods in Automatic Program Debugging
William R. Murray
IJCAI1