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

Marcel R. Karam

dblp:96/6115 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2008
—ORCID · none

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 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.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Software testing · 83% Empirical software engineering · 8% Debugging and program repair · 8%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Software testing › test adequacy › coverage criteria › structural coverage criteria
dataflow coverage
0.112008
Unit-level test adequacy criteria for visual dataflow languages and a testing methodology · ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 2008
Software testing › test adequacy › coverage criteria
structural coverage criteria
0.112008
Unit-level test adequacy criteria for visual dataflow languages and a testing methodology · ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 2008
Software testing › test adequacy
test adequacy criteria
0.112008
Unit-level test adequacy criteria for visual dataflow languages and a testing methodology · ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 2008
Empirical software engineering
developer studies
0.012008
Unit-level test adequacy criteria for visual dataflow languages and a testing methodology · ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 2008
Debugging and program repair
fault localization
0.012008
Unit-level test adequacy criteria for visual dataflow languages and a testing methodology · ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 2008

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

eye tracking · 0.1empirical study · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2008 Unit-level test adequacy criteria for visual dataflow languages and a testing methodology
abstract
Visual dataflow languages (VDFLs), which include commercial and research systems, have had a substantial impact on end-user programming. Like any other programming languages, whether visual or textual, VDFLs often contain faults. A desire to provide programmers of these languages with some of the benefits of traditional testing methodologies has been the driving force behind our effort in this work. In this article we introduce, in the context of prograph, a testing methodology for VDFLs based on structural test adequacy criteria and coverage. This article also reports on the results of two empirical studies. The first study was conducted to obtain meaningful information about, in particular, the effectiveness of our all-Dus criteria in detecting a reasonable percentage of faults in VDFLs. The second study was conducted to evaluate, under the same criterion, the effectiveness of our methodology in assisting users to visually localize faults by reducing their search space. Both studies were conducted using a testing system that we have implemented in Prograph's IDE.
Marcel R. Karam, Trevor J. Smedley, Sergiu M. Dascalu
ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol.1