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

N. C. Shrikanth

dblp:166/4289 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
3as first author
3since 2021 · last 2023
0000-0002-8983-7733ORCID · corroborated

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 3 · 3 first-author · 3 since 2021

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
Empirical software engineering · 100%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Empirical software engineering
mining software repositories
0.512021
Early Life Cycle Software Defect Prediction. Why? How? · ICSE 2021
Empirical software engineering
software defect prediction
0.512021
Early Life Cycle Software Defect Prediction. Why? How? · ICSE 2021
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2023 Assessing the Early Bird Heuristic (for Predicting Project Quality)
abstract
Before researchers rush to reason across all available data or try complex methods, perhaps it is prudent to first check for simpler alternatives. Specifically, if the historical data has the most information in some small region, then perhaps a model learned from that region would suffice for the rest of the project. To support this claim, we offer a case study with 240 projects, where we find that the information in those projects “clumps” towards the earliest parts of the project. A quality prediction model learned from just the first 150 commits works as well, or better than state-of-the-art alternatives. Using just this “early bird” data, we can build models very quickly and very early in the project life cycle. Moreover, using this early bird method, we have shown that a simple model (with just a few features) generalizes to hundreds of projects. Based on this experience, we doubt that prior work on generalizing quality models may have needlessly complicated an inherently simple process. Further, prior work that focused on later-life cycle data needs to be revisited, since their conclusions were drawn from relatively uninformative regions. Replication note: All our data and scripts are available here: https://github.com/snaraya7/early-bird.
N. C. Shrikanth, Tim Menzies
ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol.1
2021 Early Life Cycle Software Defect Prediction. Why? How?
abstract
Many researchers assume that, for software analytics, "more data is better." We write to show that, at least for learning defect predictors, this may not be true. To demonstrate this, we analyzed hundreds of popular GitHub projects. These projects ran for 84 months and contained 3,728 commits (median values). Across these projects, most of the defects occur very early in their life cycle. Hence, defect predictors learned from the first 150 commits and four months perform just as well as anything else. This means that, at least for the projects studied here, after the first few months, we need not continually update our defect prediction models. We hope these results inspire other researchers to adopt a "simplicity-first" approach to their work. Some domains require a complex and data-hungry analysis. But before assuming complexity, it is prudent to check the raw data looking for "short cuts" that can simplify the analysis.
N. C. Shrikanth, Suvodeep Majumder, Tim Menzies
ICSE1
2021 Assessing practitioner beliefs about software engineering
N. C. Shrikanth, William Nichols, Fahmid M. Fahid, Tim Menzies
Empir. Softw. Eng.1