Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
P. Y. Chan 0002
dblp:54/3353
· DBLP profile ↗
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 1990
0009-0005-7126-2977ORCID · corroborated
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 2
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
2 papers |
Software testing · 100% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Software testing
software reliability |
0.0 | 2 | 1990 | Recalibrating Software Reliability Models · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1990 Evaluation of Competing Software Reliability Predictions · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1986 |
Software testing › software reliability › software reliability modeling
software reliability growth model |
0.0 | 1 | 1990 | Recalibrating Software Reliability Models · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1990 |
Software testing › software reliability
software reliability prediction |
0.0 | 1 | 1986 | Evaluation of Competing Software Reliability Predictions · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1986 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
u-plot · 0.0simulation · 0.0statistical model selection · 0.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1990 | Recalibrating Software Reliability ModelsabstractThere is no universally applicable software reliability growth model which can be trusted to give accurate predictions of reliability in all circumstances. A technique of analyzing predictive accuracy called the u-plot allows a user to estimate the relationship between the predicted reliability and the true reliability. It is shown how this can be used to improve reliability predictions in a very general way by a process of recalibration. Simulation results show that the technique gives improved reliability predictions in a large proportion of cases. However, a user does not need to trust the efficacy of recalibration, since the new reliability estimates produced by the technique are truly predictive and their accuracy in a particular application can be judged using the earlier methods. The generality of this approach suggests its use whenever a software reliability model is used. Indeed, although this work arose from the need to address the poor performance of software reliability models, it is likely to have applicability in other areas such as reliability growth modeling for hardware.> Sarah Brocklehurst, P. Y. Chan 0002, Bev Littlewood, John Snell |
IEEE Trans. Software Eng. | 2 |
| 1986 | Evaluation of Competing Software Reliability PredictionsabstractDifferent software reliability models can produce very different answers when called on to predict future reliability in a reliability growth context. Users need to know which, if any, of the competing predictions are trustworthy. Some techniques are presented which form the basis of a partial solution to this problem. Rather than attempting to decide which model is generally best, the approach adopted allows a user to decide on the most appropriate model for each application. Abdallah A. Abdel-Ghaly, P. Y. Chan 0002, Bev Littlewood |
IEEE Trans. Software Eng. | 2 |