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

Laura Plein

dblp:258/1216 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
1as first author
3since 2021 · last 2025
0009-0000-9424-6762ORCID · corroborated

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 3 · 1 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
2 papers
Debugging and program repair · 47% Software maintenance and evolution · 29% Program analysis · 24%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Debugging and program repair
automated program repair
0.812024
Learning the Effects of Software Changes · ISSTA 2024
Debugging and program repair
fault localization
0.812024
Learning the Effects of Software Changes · ISSTA 2024
Debugging and program repair › automated program repair
learning-based program repair
0.812024
Learning the Effects of Software Changes · ISSTA 2024
Software maintenance and evolution
code clone detection
0.612022
What You See is What it Means! Semantic Representation Learning of Code based on Visualization and Transfer Learning · ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 2022
Program analysis › code representation learning
code embedding
0.612022
What You See is What it Means! Semantic Representation Learning of Code based on Visualization and Transfer Learning · ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 2022
Program analysis
code representation learning
0.612022
What You See is What it Means! Semantic Representation Learning of Code based on Visualization and Transfer Learning · ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 2022
Software maintenance and evolution › code clone detection
semantic code clone detection
0.612022
What You See is What it Means! Semantic Representation Learning of Code based on Visualization and Transfer Learning · ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 2022
Software maintenance and evolution
change impact analysis
0.212024
Learning the Effects of Software Changes · ISSTA 2024

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

machine learning · 0.8word embedding · 0.6transfer learning · 0.6image classification neural networks · 0.6
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Enriching automatic test case generation by extracting relevant test inputs from bug reports
abstract
Abstract The quality of software is closely tied to the effectiveness of the tests it undergoes. Manual test writing, though crucial for bug detection, is time-consuming, which has driven significant research into automated test case generation. However, current methods often struggle to generate relevant inputs, limiting the effectiveness of the tests produced. To address this, we introduce BRMiner , a novel approach that leverages Large Language Models (LLMs) in combination with traditional techniques to extract relevant inputs from bug reports, thereby enhancing automated test generation tools. In this study, we evaluate BRMiner using the Defects4J benchmark and test generation tools such as EvoSuite and Randoop. Our results demonstrate that BRMiner achieves a Relevant Input Rate (RIR) of 60.03% and a Relevant Input Extraction Accuracy Rate (RIEAR) of 31.71%, significantly outperforming methods that rely on LLMs alone. The integration of BRMiner’s input enhances EvoSuite ability to generate more effective test, leading to increased code coverage, with gains observed in branch, instruction, method, and line coverage across multiple projects. Furthermore, BRMiner facilitated the detection of 58 unique bugs, including those that were missed by traditional baseline approaches. Overall, BRMiner ’s combination of LLM filtering with traditional input extraction techniques significantly improves the relevance and effectiveness of automated test generation, advancing the detection of bugs and enhancing code coverage, thereby contributing to higher-quality software development.
Wendkûuni C. Ouédraogo, Laura Plein, Abdoul Kader Kaboré, Andrew Habib, Jacques Klein, David Lo 0001, Tegawendé F. Bissyandé
Empir. Softw. Eng.2
2024 Learning the Effects of Software Changes
abstract
Software development requires several stages of code iterations, each one requiring debugging, testing, localizing and fixing bugs. While several tools have been developed to automate one of those tasks individually, integrating and combining those results still requires a huge manual effort from software developers. Additionally, many approaches, e.g., in Automated Program Repair, are based on specifically curated fix templates that fail to generalize to most complex software projects. To address those challenges, I propose a new research agenda to learn the effects of software changes in order to localize and fix bugs without being limited to a specific project or a specific programming language. Additionally, my approach can be used to predict the effects of software changes. My preliminary results indicate the feasibility of successfully training a model on Python software changes and their effects, that is capable of producing 80% of correct patches and predicting the effect of a change with an accuracy of 81%. My results highlight the potential of learning the effects of software changes for better software development.
Laura Plein
ISSTA1
2022 What You See is What it Means! Semantic Representation Learning of Code based on Visualization and Transfer Learning
abstract
Recent successes in training word embeddings for Natural Language Processing ( NLP ) tasks have encouraged a wave of research on representation learning for source code, which builds on similar NLP methods. The overall objective is then to produce code embeddings that capture the maximum of program semantics. State-of-the-art approaches invariably rely on a syntactic representation (i.e., raw lexical tokens, abstract syntax trees, or intermediate representation tokens) to generate embeddings, which are criticized in the literature as non-robust or non-generalizable. In this work, we investigate a novel embedding approach based on the intuition that source code has visual patterns of semantics. We further use these patterns to address the outstanding challenge of identifying semantic code clones. We propose the WySiWiM ( ‘ ‘What You See Is What It Means ” ) approach where visual representations of source code are fed into powerful pre-trained image classification neural networks from the field of computer vision to benefit from the practical advantages of transfer learning. We evaluate the proposed embedding approach on the task of vulnerable code prediction in source code and on two variations of the task of semantic code clone identification: code clone detection (a binary classification problem), and code classification (a multi-classification problem). We show with experiments on the BigCloneBench (Java), Open Judge (C) that although simple, our WySiWiM approach performs as effectively as state-of-the-art approaches such as ASTNN or TBCNN. We also showed with data from NVD and SARD that WySiWiM representation can be used to learn a vulnerable code detector with reasonable performance (accuracy ∼90%). We further explore the influence of different steps in our approach, such as the choice of visual representations or the classification algorithm, to eventually discuss the promises and limitations of this research direction.
Patrick Keller, Abdoul Kader Kaboré, Laura Plein, Jacques Klein, Yves Le Traon, Tegawendé F. Bissyandé
ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol.3