Debugging Expert Wins ACM Dissertation Award
An anonymous reader writes "The Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) is reporting that Ben Liblit has been awarded the 2005 Doctoral Dissertation Award for his study on understanding and fixing software 'bugs' in the real world. From the article: 'Liblit's dissertation proposes a method for leveraging the key strength of user communities - their overwhelming numbers. His approach uses sparse random sampling rather than complete data collection for gathering information from the experiences of large numbers of software end users. It also simultaneously ensures that the observed data is an unbiased, representative subset of the complete program behavior across all runs.' Slashdot broke the story on this research back in 2003. Apparently the project is still going strong."
http://findbugs.sourceforge.net/
This research has been a wonderful collaborative effort, and many people deserve to share the credit. To quote from part of the Acknowledgements section of my dissertation:
So thanks, Slashdot, for helping me find those users (or helping them find me). The exposure was invaluable. And thanks, open source community, for your participation. I've benefitted greatly from standing on your massed shoulders. This could not have happened without you.
Ben Liblit is now an assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He joins a fantastic Computer Science department. Good luck Ben!
Informed participation is a really big deal for me. No user should ever find themselves participating in the Cooperative Bug Isolation Project without their knowledge. Opt-in is explicit and revokable, and if the opt-in system runs into trouble of any kind, the fallback position is no data reporting at all.
The whole thing collapses if users don't trust me. So I've taken every measure I can think of to ensure that they can. Please see the relevant project page for more details about privacy matters.
Working on it! Check back in with me in a few years ... maybe less. :-)
Yes, exactly. The users are beta testers; we may as well admit it. I want to make them better beta testers. :-)
Hey, it's a real page-turner. Well, it has pages and they turn, at least.
The other questions you ask are all good ones, but a bit much to address in a Slashdot comment. Please see the project home page for more information. The "Learn More" page may answer some of your questions, and there are additional drill-down pages from there with even more technical material on selected topics.
Please understand that I don't mean to brush off your insightful questions. They are just questions for which satisfactory answers are hard to give in a sentence or two.
tr.v. leveraged, leveraging, leverages 1.
..." does not make sense. The overwhelming numbers are there they do not need improvement. What you may want to say is sthng like:
"for using the key strengh of user communities as a leverage to blah blah blah"
...
a. To provide (a company) with leverage.
b. To supplement (money, for example) with leverage.
2. To improve or enhance: "It makes more sense to be able to leverage what we [public radio stations] do in a more effective way to our listeners" Delano Lewis.
So listen and listen good all you academic paper writers: unless what you really mean by "leverage" is "improve", don't use it.
"Liblit's dissertation proposes a method for leveraging the key strength of user communities - their overwhelming numbers." WRONG. "improving the key strength of communities -their overwhelming
Just because a word sounds good it does not mean it should be used as a wild card