1,721,054 research outputs found
Automated fixing of wrong assumptions on underdetermined specifications
Full text linkSoftware specifications assist in the implementation of software by stating expected software behavior. Many software specifications are deterministic, i.e., the software produces the same output for the same input. However, some specifications are underdetermined, meaning that the software may produce different outputs given the same input. Underdetermined specifications are not uncommon because they can offer some advantages over deterministic ones. For instance, underdetermined specifications can allow for optimization as developers can be more flexible when conducting speed optimization. We encounter potential problems when deterministic implementations produce different outputs. For example, even though the Java standard library does not specify the order of elements returned by method getDeclaredFields, prevailing implementations, like Oracle JDK 1.8, return fields in the order as they are listed in the class file (which is itself the order in which they are in the source file when using the standard javac compiler). There is no reason to expect the implementation will not change because the specifications allow flexibility, and popular vendors have historically changed the implementations of several widely used library methods.
Unfortunately, software library users may write code that relies on a specific implementation rather than on the specification, e.g., assuming mistakenly that the order of elements cannot change in the future. If users write software tests that involve methods with underdetermined specifications, those tests can therefore produce unexpectedly non-deterministic outputs, meaning that tests can intermittently fail or pass without changing the production and test code (but changing the library code). Prior work proposed the NonDex approach to proactively detect such wrong assumptions in the production and test code.
The goal of this thesis is to propose automated code changes that help resolve these issues by either making the output deterministic or making the test assertion order-agnostic. We present a novel approach, called DexFix, to fix wrong assumptions on underdetermined software specifications in an automated way. To demonstrate these efforts, we run the NonDex tool on 200 open-source Java projects and detect 275 tests that fail due to wrong assumptions. We find that the majority of failures are based on HashMap/HashSet class iterations and the getDeclaredFields method. We provide several new automated fix strategies that can fix these violations in both the production and test code, which are implemented in the DexFix tool. Our experiments show that DexFix proposes fixes for 101 tests from our 275 tests. We have reported fixes for 84 tests to the developers as GitHub pull requests: 57 have been merged, with only 2 rejected, and the remaining are pending.Submission published under a 24 month embargo labeled 'Closed Access', the embargo will last until 2022-05-01The student, Peilun Zhang, accepted the attached license on 2020-05-11 at 13:58.The student, Peilun Zhang, submitted this Thesis for approval on 2020-05-11 at 14:18.This Thesis was approved for publication on 2020-05-12 at 15:53.DSpace SAF Submission Ingestion Package generated from Vireo submission #15327 on 2020-08-25 at 17:44:19Made available in DSpace on 2020-08-27T00:51:32Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2
ZHANG-THESIS-2020.pdf: 251202 bytes, checksum: fb1331b85e26b9756559c5c5e54cbe97 (MD5)
LICENSE.txt: 4209 bytes, checksum: 715ce4d9f9161ef8e5199618ae689349 (MD5)
Previous issue date: 2020-05-12Embargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 115958
Lift date: 2022-08-27T00:51:40Z
Reason: Author requested closed access (OA after 2yrs) in Vireo ETD systemAuthor requested closed access (OA after 2yrs) in Vireo ETD systemLimite
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
Full text link“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Full text linkWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Recommended from our members
The Legal Framework for Reproducible Scientific Research: Licensing and Copyright
Full text linkAs computational researchers increasingly make their results available in a reproducible way, and often outside the traditional journal publishing mechanism, questions naturally arise with regard to copyright, subsequent use and citation, and ownership rights in general. The growing number of scientists who release their research publicly face a gap in the current licensing and copyright structure, particularly on the Internet. Scientific research produces more than the final paper: The code, data structures, experimental design and parameters, documentation, and figures are all important for scholarship communication and result replication. The author proposes the reproducible research standard for scientific researchers to use for all components of their scholarship that should encourage reproducible scientific investigation through attribution, facilitate greater collaboration, and promote engagement of the larger community in scientific learning and discovery
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Full text linkWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
koamabayili/VECTRON-author-checklist: VECTRON author checklist
No full textWe have done our best to complete the author checklist relating to the use of animals in the hut study. Note that the objective for the hut study was to evaluate the IRS treatment applications for residual efficacy against Anopheles mosquitoes, including the local An. coluzzii mosquito population. Cows were only used to attract mosquitoes into the huts and no tests were carried out directly on the cows. The author checklist is intended for use with studies where experiments are carried out on animals, which is why we have had such difficulty in completing this for the hut study, as many of the questions do not relate to how the cows were used
The Reproducibility Project: a model of large-scale collaboration for empirical research on reproducibility
Full text link- …
