Demo Data from SIGIR 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Marcel R. Karam
dblp:96/6115
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2008
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 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
1 paper |
Software testing · 83% Empirical software engineering · 8% Debugging and program repair · 8% |
Topics — the 5 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Software testing › test adequacy › coverage criteria › structural coverage criteria
dataflow coverage |
0.1 | 1 | 2008 | Unit-level test adequacy criteria for visual dataflow languages and a testing methodology · ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 2008 |
Software testing › test adequacy › coverage criteria
structural coverage criteria |
0.1 | 1 | 2008 | Unit-level test adequacy criteria for visual dataflow languages and a testing methodology · ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 2008 |
Software testing › test adequacy
test adequacy criteria |
0.1 | 1 | 2008 | Unit-level test adequacy criteria for visual dataflow languages and a testing methodology · ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 2008 |
Empirical software engineering
developer studies |
0.0 | 1 | 2008 | Unit-level test adequacy criteria for visual dataflow languages and a testing methodology · ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 2008 |
Debugging and program repair
fault localization |
0.0 | 1 | 2008 | Unit-level test adequacy criteria for visual dataflow languages and a testing methodology · ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 2008 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
eye tracking · 0.1empirical study · 0.1
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 | Unit-level test adequacy criteria for visual dataflow languages and a testing methodologyabstractVisual dataflow languages (VDFLs), which include commercial and research systems, have had a substantial impact on end-user programming. Like any other programming languages, whether visual or textual, VDFLs often contain faults. A desire to provide programmers of these languages with some of the benefits of traditional testing methodologies has been the driving force behind our effort in this work. In this article we introduce, in the context of prograph, a testing methodology for VDFLs based on structural test adequacy criteria and coverage. This article also reports on the results of two empirical studies. The first study was conducted to obtain meaningful information about, in particular, the effectiveness of our all-Dus criteria in detecting a reasonable percentage of faults in VDFLs. The second study was conducted to evaluate, under the same criterion, the effectiveness of our methodology in assisting users to visually localize faults by reducing their search space. Both studies were conducted using a testing system that we have implemented in Prograph's IDE. Marcel R. Karam, Trevor J. Smedley, Sergiu M. Dascalu |
ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. | 1 |