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

Andrzej Wasylkowski

dblp:21/931 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
5ranked-venue papers
3as 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 · 5 · 3 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
3 papers
Program analysis · 53% Software maintenance and evolution · 28% Program verification · 11%

Topics — the 7 heaviest of 8, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Program analysis
static analysis
0.222010
Learning from 6, 000 projects: lightweight cross-project anomaly detection · ISSTA 2010
Mining Temporal Specifications from Object Usage · ASE 2009
Software maintenance and evolution › code smell
code smell detection
0.122010
Learning from 6, 000 projects: lightweight cross-project anomaly detection · ISSTA 2010
Mining Temporal Specifications from Object Usage · ASE 2009
Program verification
model checking
0.112009
Mining Temporal Specifications from Object Usage · ASE 2009
Program analysis
specification mining
0.112009
Mining Temporal Specifications from Object Usage · ASE 2009
Program analysis › specification mining
temporal specification mining
0.112009
Mining Temporal Specifications from Object Usage · ASE 2009
Program analysis
dynamic analysis
0.112007
Detecting object usage anomalies · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2007
Software testing
fault detection
0.112007
Detecting object usage anomalies · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2007

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

temporal property mining · 0.1static analysis · 0.1model checking · 0.1CTL · 0.1sequence mining · 0.1pattern inference · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2011 Mining Evolution of Object Usage
Yana Momchilova Mileva, Andrzej Wasylkowski, Andreas Zeller
ECOOP2
2011 Mining temporal specifications from object usage
Andrzej Wasylkowski, Andreas Zeller
Autom. Softw. Eng.1
2010 Learning from 6, 000 projects: lightweight cross-project anomaly detection
abstract
Real production code contains lots of knowledge - on the domain, on the architecture, and on the environment. How can we leverage this knowledge in new projects? Using a novel lightweight source code parser, we have mined more than 6,000 open source Linux projects (totaling 200,000,000 lines of code) to obtain 16,000,000 temporal properties reflecting normal interface usage. New projects can be checked against these rules to detect anomalies - that is, code that deviates from the wisdom of the crowds. In a sample of 20 projects, ~25% of the top-ranked anomalies uncovered actual code smells or defects.
Natalie Gruska, Andrzej Wasylkowski, Andreas Zeller
ISSTA2
2009 Mining Temporal Specifications from Object Usage
abstract
A caller must satisfy the callee's precondition--that is, reach a state in which the callee may be called. Preconditions describe the state that needs to be reached, but not how to reach it. We combine static analysis with model checking to mine Computation Tree Logic (CTL) formulas that describe the operations a parameter goes through: "In parseProperties (String xml), the parameter xml normally stems from getProperties()." Such operational preconditions can be learned from program code, and the code can be checked for their violations. Applied to AspectJ, our Tikanga prototype found 189 violations of operational preconditions, uncovering 9 unique defects and 36 unique code smells-with 44% true positives in the 50 top-ranked violations.
Andrzej Wasylkowski, Andreas Zeller
ASE1
2007 Detecting object usage anomalies
abstract
Interacting with objects often requires following a protocol—for instance, a specific sequence of method calls. These protocols are not always documented, and violations can lead to subtle problems. Our approach takes code examples to automatically infer legal sequences of method calls. The resulting patterns can then be used to detect anomalies such as “Before calling next(), one normally calls hasNext()”. To our knowledge, this is the first fully automatic defect detection approach that learns and checks method call sequences. Our JADET prototype has detected yet undiscovered defects and code smells in five popular open-source programs, including two new defects in ASPECTJ.
Andrzej Wasylkowski, Andreas Zeller, Christian Lindig
ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE1