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

Mark Wilding

dblp:62/5888 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2007
—ORCID · unresolved

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
Software testing · 77% Software maintenance and evolution · 12% Program analysis · 12%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Software testing
test coverage
0.112007
An iterative, multi-level, and scalable approach to comparing execution traces · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2007
Software testing
trace comparison
0.112007
An iterative, multi-level, and scalable approach to comparing execution traces · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2007
Program analysis › dynamic analysis › trace analysis
execution trace analysis
0.012007
An iterative, multi-level, and scalable approach to comparing execution traces · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2007
Software maintenance and evolution
program comprehension
0.012007
An iterative, multi-level, and scalable approach to comparing execution traces · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2007

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

trace compression · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2007 An iterative, multi-level, and scalable approach to comparing execution traces
abstract
In this paper, we overview a new approach to comparing execution traces. Such comparison can be useful for purposes such as improving test coverage and profiling system's users. In our approach, traces are compressed into different levels of compaction and are then compared iteratively from highest to lowest levels, rejecting dissimilar traces in the process and eventually leaving residual, similar traces. These residual traces form an important feedback for improvement or analysis goals. The preliminary results show that the approach is scalable for industrial use.
Andriy V. Miranskyy, Nazim H. Madhavji, Mechelle Gittens, Matthew Davison 0001, Mark Wilding, David Godwin
ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE5