Demo Data from SIGIR 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Kenneth Harvey
dblp:190/1234
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2016
—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 |
Program analysis · 50% Software maintenance and evolution · 50% |
Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Software maintenance and evolution
code clone detection |
0.2 | 1 | 2016 | Code relatives: detecting similarly behaving software · SIGSOFT FSE 2016 |
Program analysis
dynamic analysis |
0.2 | 1 | 2016 | Code relatives: detecting similarly behaving software · SIGSOFT FSE 2016 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
subgraph matching · 0.2dynamic dependence graphs · 0.2
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | Code relatives: detecting similarly behaving softwareabstractDetecting “similar code” is useful for many software engineering tasks. Current tools can help detect code with statically similar syntactic and–or semantic features (code clones) and with dynamically similar functional input/output (simions). Unfortunately, some code fragments that behave similarly at the finer granularity of their execution traces may be ignored. In this paper, we propose the term “code relatives” to refer to code with similar execution behavior. We define code relatives and then present DyCLINK, our approach to detecting code relatives within and across codebases. DyCLINK records instruction-level traces from sample executions, organizes the traces into instruction-level dynamic dependence graphs, and employs our specialized subgraph matching algorithm to efficiently compare the executions of candidate code relatives. In our experiments, DyCLINK analyzed 422+ million prospective subgraph matches in only 43 minutes. We compared DyCLINK to one static code clone detector from the community and to our implementation of a dynamic simion detector. The results show that DyCLINK effectively detects code relatives with a reasonable analysis time. Fang-Hsiang Su, Jonathan Bell 0001, Kenneth Harvey, Simha Sethumadhavan, Gail E. Kaiser, Tony Jebara |
SIGSOFT FSE | 3 |