Biblio | Evaluate Collaboratory

Biblio

List
Filter

Export 61 results:

Sort by: [ Author

] Keyword Title Type Year

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

B

Bachmann, A, Bird C, Rahman F, Devanbu P, Bernstein A. 2010. The missing links: bugs and bug-fix commits. Proceedings of the eighteenth ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on Foundations of software engineering. :97–106. Abstract

Bailey, DH. 1992. Misleading Performance Reporting in the Supercomputing Field. Sci. Program.. 1:141–151. Abstract

Bailey, DH. 1991. Twelve ways to fool the masses when giving performance results on parallel computers. Supercomputing Review. :54--55. Abstract

Bailey, DH. 2009. Misleading performance claims in parallel computations. Proceedings of the 46th Annual Design Automation Conference. :528–533. Abstract

Baker, M. 2012. Independent labs to verify high-profile papers. Nature | News. Abstract

Basili, VR, Caldiera G, Rombach DH. 1994. The Goal Question Metric Approach. Encyclopedia of Software Engineering.

Basili, VR. 1996. The role of experimentation in software engineering: past, current, and future. Proceedings of the 18th international conference on Software engineering. :442–449. Abstract

Begley, S. 2012. More trial, less error - An effort to improve scientific studies. Reuters. Abstract

Bird, C, Bachmann A, Aune E, Duffy J, Bernstein A, Filkov V, Devanbu P. 2009. Fair and balanced?: bias in bug-fix datasets Proceedings of the the 7th joint meeting of the European software engineering conference and the ACM SIGSOFT symposium on The foundations of software engineering. :121–130. Abstract

Blackburn, SM, Garner R, Hoffmann C, Khang AM, McKinley KS, Bentzur R, Diwan A, Feinberg D, Frampton D, Guyer SZ et al.. 2006. The DaCapo benchmarks: java benchmarking development and analysis. OOPSLA '06: Proceedings of the 21st annual ACM SIGPLAN conference on Object-oriented programming systems, languages, and applications. :169–190. Abstract

Bonnet, P, Manegold S, Bjørling M, Cao W, Gonzalez J, Granados J, Hall N, Idreos S, Ivanova M, Johnson R et al.. 2011. Repeatability and workability evaluation of SIGMOD 2011. SIGMOD Rec.. 40:45–48. Abstract

Buse, RPL, Sadowski C, Weimer W. 2011. Benefits and Barriers of User Evaluation in Software Engineering Research. OOPSLA '11: Proceedings of the ACM international conference on Object oriented programming systems languages and applications. Abstract

C

Clark, B, Deshane T, Dow E, Evanchik S, Finlayson M, Herne J, Matthews J N. 2004. Xen and the art of repeated research. Proceedings of the annual conference on USENIX Annual Technical Conference. :47–47. Abstract

Committee on Academic Careers for Experimental Computer Scientists, National Research Council. 1994. Academic Careers for Experimental Computer Scientists and Engineers. :152.

Computer Science and Telecommunications Board. 1994. Academic careers for experimental computer scientists and engineers. Commun. ACM. 37:87–90. Abstract

D

Davidson, JE. 2005. Evaluation Methodology Basics: The Nuts and Bolts of Sound Evaluation. :280. Abstract

Denning, PJ. 1981. ACM president's letter: performance analysis: experimental computer science as its best. Commun. ACM. 24:725–727.

Dittrich, J. 2010. Paper Bricks: An Alternative to Complete-Story Peer Reviewing. SIGMOD Record. 39(4) Abstract

Drummond, C. 2009. Replicability in not Reproducibility: Nor is it Good Science. The 4th workshop on Evaluation Methods for Machine Learning. Abstract

Druschel, P, Isaacs R, Gross T, Shapiro M. 2006. Fostering Systems Research in Europe: A White Paper by EuroSys, the European Professional Society in Systems. Abstract

E

Eide, E, Stoller L, Lepreau J. 2007. An experimentation workbench for replayable networking research. Proceedings of the 4th USENIX conference on Networked systems design & implementation. :16–16. Abstract

Eisenberg, M. 2003. Creating a computer science canon: a course of "classic" readings in computer science. Proceedings of the 34th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education. :336–340.

F

Feitelson, DG. 2006. Experimental Computer Science: The Need for a Cultural Change. Abstract

Fenton, NE, Pfleeger S L. 1998. Software Metrics: A Rigorous and Practical Approach.

Feynman, R. 1974. Cargo Cult Science. Engineering and Science. 37(7):10-13. Abstract

OOPSLA'13 Artifacts

Authors of OOPSLA research papers accepted in the first reviewing phase are invited to formally submit supporting materials to the Artifact Evaluation process. The high level goal of the Artifact Evaluation (AE) process is to empower others to build upon the contributions of a paper. The AE process, new this year, is run by a separate committee whose task is to assess how the artifacts support the work described in the papers. This submission is voluntary and will not influence the final decision regarding the papers. Papers that go through the Artifact Evaluation process successfully will receive a seal of approval printed on the papers themselves.

OOPSLA'13 Artifact Call

Submission Deadline: June 1, 2013.

Evaluate 2012

Please read our Comments on the Computer Science Curricula 2013 Strawman Draft.

The Canon

Let's build an "Experimental Evaluation in Software and Systems Canon", a list of readings on experimental evaluation and "good science" that have influenced us and that have the potential to influence the researchers coming after us.

Go to the Canon.

Letter to PC Chairs

Are you working on a call for papers for a systems or software venue?

Please read our open letter to PC chairs.

Of Interest

SPEC forms a Research Group to provide a platform for collaborative research projects in the area of performance measurement, load testing, profiling, workload characterization, dependability and efficiency evaluation of computing systems.