Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Joshua Geiger
dblp:46/1870
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2007
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 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.
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper |
Software testing · 87% Program analysis · 13% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Software testing › regression testing
test case prioritization |
0.1 | 1 | 2007 | Test suite reduction and prioritization with call trees · ASE 2007 |
Software testing › regression testing
test suite reduction |
0.1 | 1 | 2007 | Test suite reduction and prioritization with call trees · ASE 2007 |
Program analysis
dynamic analysis |
0.0 | 1 | 2007 | Test suite reduction and prioritization with call trees · ASE 2007 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
dynamic call tree · 0.1coverage visualization · 0.1calling context tree · 0.1
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 | Test suite reduction and prioritization with call treesabstractThis paper presents a tool that (i) constructs tree-based models of a program's behavior during testing and (ii) employs these trees while reordering and reducing a test suite. Using either a dynamic call tree or a calling context tree, the test reduction component identifies a subset of the original tests that covers the same call tree paths. The prioritization technique reorders a test suite so that it covers the call tree paths more rapidly than the initial test ordering. In support of program and test suite understanding, the tool also visualizes the call trees and the coverage relationships. For a chosen case study application, the experimental results show that call tree construction only increases testing time by 13%. In comparison to the original test suite, the experiments show that (i) a prioritized suite achieves coverage much faster and (ii) a reduced test suite contains 45% fewer tests and consumes 82% less time Adam M. Smith 0002, Joshua Geiger, Gregory M. Kapfhammer, Mary Lou Soffa |
ASE | 2 |