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
Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert

Jurand Nogiec

dblp:76/9656 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2011
—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 · 56% Debugging and program repair · 44%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Debugging and program repair
automated program repair		 0.112011
ReAssert: a tool for repairing broken unit tests · ICSE 2011
Software testing
test repair		 0.112011
ReAssert: a tool for repairing broken unit tests · ICSE 2011
Software testing
unit testing		 0.012011
ReAssert: a tool for repairing broken unit tests · ICSE 2011

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

automated repair · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2011 ReAssert: a tool for repairing broken unit tests
abstract
Successful software systems continuously change their requirements and thus code. When this happens, some existing tests get broken because they no longer reflect the intended behavior, and thus they need to be updated. Repairing broken tests can be time-consuming and difficult.
Brett Daniel, Danny Dig, Tihomir Gvero, Vilas Jagannath, Johnston Jiaa, Damion Mitchell, Jurand Nogiec, Shin Hwei Tan, Darko Marinov
 ICSE7