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

Kenneth Harvey

dblp:190/1234 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Software maintenance and evolution
code clone detection
0.212016
Code relatives: detecting similarly behaving software · SIGSOFT FSE 2016
Program analysis
dynamic analysis
0.212016
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
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2016 Code relatives: detecting similarly behaving software
abstract
Detecting “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 FSE3