Class Schedule, Reading List, and Project Milestones 

Introduction (8/25, 8/30) 

• Syllabus 
• Background Survey
• Introduction to Dr. Kim's Research Area
• Sample Project Ideas
• Mythical Man-Month, Fredrick P. Brooks, Jr. "No Silver Bullet: Essence and Accidents of Software Engineering", Computer, April 1987

(Project) Now: Topic Selection

Start thinking about what kinds of projects interest you and check out the suggested project ideas in the blackboard system (Left Menu, Course Documents=>Suggested Project Ideas). If you would like me to help you find a project that fits your interests, please let me know.

Program Differencing (9/1, 9/8)

• The Longest Common Subsequence Algorithm (diff)
• Abstract syntactic tree based program differencing (CDiff)
• Optional: Wuu Yang. Identifying syntactic differences between two programs. Software – Practice & Experience, 21(7):739–755, 1991.
• Control Flow Graph based Program Differencing (JDiff)
• Taweesup Apiwattanapong, Alessandro Orso, and Mary Jean Harrold. "A differencing algorithm for object-oriented programs". In ASE ’04: Proceedings of the 19th IEEE International Conference on Automated Software  Engineering, pages 2–13, Washington, DC, USA, 2004. IEEE Computer Society.
• Class Activity on Line-based and AST-based Program Diffferencing
• Logical Structural Diff
• Optional: Miryung Kim and David Notkin. "Discovering and Representing Systematic Code Changes". In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering, 2009


• Reading Assignment #1 Due (8/31) 

Note: Dr. Kim will be attending conferences from 9/12 to 9/25. We will have a guest lecture from Dr. Sarfraz Khurshild on 9/13 and Dr. Christine Julien on 9/20.  We will have a presentation from Kyle Prete, Shayne Czyzewski and Na Meng on 9/15 and 9/22.

(Project) Pre-Proposal Due (9/10)

Each person will submit a 1 page proposal describing the research project that you plan to work on. I expect to see sections on:

• Problem definition and motivation. What are the goals of your project and why are these goals important?
• Your approach for addressing the problem that you defined above.
• An initial discussion of related work. 

Please use the blackboard system (link on the course front page) to upload your project proposal. Each proposal should begin with a title. Each proposal should be in ACM SIG proceedings format. Submissions not in this format will not be reviewed. (This is to model program committees for conferences and workshops, which have the option to automatically reject papers if they do not comply with the submission guidelines).

Mining Software Repositories (9/27, 9/29)

• Recommending Related Changes
• Thomas Zimmermann, Peter Weißgerber, Stephan Diehl, and Andreas Zeller. "Mining version histories to guide software changes", IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 31(6):429–445, 2005.
• Recommending Relevant Artifacts
• Davor Cubranic and Gail C. Murphy. "Hipikat: recommending pertinent software development artifacts". In ICSE ’03: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 408–418, Washington, DC, USA, 2003. IEEE Computer Society.
• Class Activity on Recommendation Systems 
• Reading Assignment #2 Due (9/26)

(Project) Proposal Due (9/30, 11:59 PM) 

Each person will submit a 3 page proposal describing the research project that you plan to work on. I expect to see sections on:

• Problem definition and motivation. What are the goals of your project and why are these goals important?
• Your approach for addressing the problem that you defined above.
• How you plan to evaluate your approach.
• A more in-depth discussion of related work. If appropriate, also explain how your approach is different from existing approaches.
• A list of milestones and dates.

Please use the blackboard system (link on the course front page) to upload your project proposal. This proposal is a refined version of your pre-proposal. It should be in ACM SIG proceedings format. 

Delta Debugging (10/4) and FindBug (10/6) 

• Andreas Zeller. "Yesterday, my program worked. today, it does not. why?", In ESEC/FSE-7: Proceedings of the 7th European Software Engineering Conference held jointly with the 7th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering, pages 253–267, London, UK, 1999. Springer-Verlag.
• Applications of the Delta Debugging Algorithm
• David Hovemeyer and William Pugh, "Finding Bugs is Easy", In OOPSLA onward! 2004, ACM SIGPLAN Notices, pages 92-106, 2004 
• Reading Assignment #3 Due (10/3) 

Regression Testing and Change Impact Analysis (10/11, 10/13) 

• Regression Testing Selection
• Alessandro Orso, Nanjuan Shi, and Mary Jean Harrold, "Scaling regression testing to large software systems", In SIGSOFT ’04/FSE-12: Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGSOFT twelfth International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering, pages 241–251, New York, NY, USA, 2004. ACM.
• Class Activity on Code Coverage
• Change Impact Analysis
• Xiaoxia Ren, Fenil Shah, Frank Tip, Barbara G. Ryder, and Ophelia Chesley, "Chianti: a tool for change impact analysis of java programs", In OOPSLA ’04: Proceedings of the 19th annual ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications, pages 432–448, New York, NY, USA, 2004. ACM.
• Class Activity on Change Impact Analysis
• Reading Assignment #4 Due (10/10)

Program Restructuring (10/18) and Software Design for Ease of Change (10/20)

• Refactoring Reconstruction
• Optional: Danny Dig and Ralph Johnson. "Automated detection of refactorings in evolving components", In ECOOP ’06: Proceedings of European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, pages 404–428. Springer, 2006.
• Information Hiding Principle
• David Lorge Parnas. "On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules", Communications of the ACM, 15(12):1053–1058, 1972.
• Design Patterns 
• Software Architecture
• David Garlan and Mary Shaw. "An Introduction to Software Architecture", CMU Tech Report, January 1994. 
• Reading Assignment #5 Due (10/17)

(Project) Midpoint Review Report and Presentation Due (10/24, 11:59 PM)

Each person should submit a midpoint progress report (max 6 pages) to the blackboard system. This progress report should detail what you have accomplished so far since your last checkpoint. List all technical challenges if you are stuck in making progress.   It should be in ACM SIG proceeding's format.

In your progress reports, you should reflect on what you have accomplished and draw preliminary conclusions from your results. If appropriate, you should also explicitly state any additional experiments or evaluations you may need to perform in order to strengthen your preliminary conclusions or answer open questions left by your preliminary conclusions. I expect to see sections on:

• Problem definition and motivation. What are the goals of your project and why are these goals important?
• Your approach for addressing the problem that you defined above.
• Your evaluation plan
• Preliminiary results
• Additional experiments and evaluations that you plan to perform
• Related work that explain how your approach is different from existing approaches.
• Preliminary conclusions

Here is a grading guideline for a midpoint review report (pdf).

Midpoint Project Presentations in Class (10/25, 10/27)

Crosscutting Concerns (11/1, 11/3)

• Separation of Concerns
• Peri Tarr, Harold Ossher, William Harrison, and Jr. Stanley M. Sutton. "N degrees of separation: multi-dimensional separation of concerns", In ICSE ’99: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 107–119, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 1999. IEEE Computer Society Press.
• Concern Management 
• Martin P. Robillard and Gail C. Murphy, "Concern graphs: finding and describing concerns using structural program dependencies," In ICSE ’02: Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 406–416, Washington, DC, USA, 2003. IEEE Computer Society.
• Language-based Approaches toward Crosscutting Concerns
• Optional: Gregor Kiczales, John Lamping, Anurag Menhdhekar, Chris Maeda, Cristina Lopes, Jean-Marc Loingtier, and John Irwin, "Aspect-oriented programming", In European Conference on Object-oriented Programming, volume 1241, pages 220–242. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1241, 1997
• Optional: Michael VanHilst and David Notkin, "Decoupling change from design", In SIGSOFT ’96: Proceedings of the 4th ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering, pages 58–69, New York, NY, USA, 1996. ACM.
• Activity on Crosscutting Concerns & Visitor Pattern
• Reading Assignment #6 Due (10/30)

Empirical Studies of Software Evolution (11/8, 11/10)

• Code Decay
• Stephen G. Eick, Todd L. Graves, Alan F. Karr, J. S. Marron, and Audris Mockus. "Does code decay? Assessing the evidence from change management data", IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 27(1):1–12, 2001.
• Corrective, Adaptive, and Perfective Changes
• Optional: Chris F. Kemerer and Sandra Slaughter. "An empirical approach to studying software evolution". IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 25(4):493–509, 1999.
• Reading Assignment #7 Due (11/7)

Reverse Engineering and Knowledge Discovery (11/15, 11/17)

• Reflexion Model
• Gail C. Murphy, David Notkin, and Kevin Sullivan, "Software reflexion models: bridging the gap between source and high-level models", In SIGSOFT ’95: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering, pages 18–28, New York, NY, USA, 1995. ACM.
• Metrics and Visualization
• Michele Lanza and St´ephane Ducasse, "Polymetric views-a lightweight visual approach to reverse engineering", IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 29(9):782–795, 2003.
• Reading Assignment #8 Due (11/14)

Clones (11/22, 11/24)

• Automatic Clone Detection
• Toshihiro Kamiya, Shinji Kusumoto, and Katsuro Inoue, "CCFinder: A multilinguistic token-based code clone detection system for large scale source code", IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 28(7):654–670, 2002.
• Code Clone Genealogy
• Miryung Kim, Vibha Sazawal, David Notkin, and Gail Murphy, "An empirical study of code clone genealogies", In ESEC/FSE-13: Proceedings of the 10th European Soft-ware Engineering Conference held jointly with 13th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering, pages 187–196, New York, NY, USA, 2005. ACM.
• Reading Assignment #9 Due (11/21)

(Project) Final Report, Electronic Presentation, and Implementation Zip File with Manual Due (11/28, 11:59 PM)

Each person will submit a written report (max 10 pages), as well as a slide deck, to the blackboard system. Please submit the report and the slide deck as separate PDF files. You may include an appendix beyond 10 pages, but your paper must be intelligible without it. Submissions not in the ACM format will not be reviewed (this is to model program committees for conferences and workshops, which have the option to automatically reject papers if they do not comply with the submission guidelines).

Your report should be structured like a conference paper, meaning that your report should contain:

• Abstract
• A well-motivated introduction
• Related work with proper citations 
• Description of your methodology
• Evaluation results 
• Discussion of your approach, threats to validity, and additional experiments
• Conclusions and future work 
• Appendix: Describe how to run and test your implementation (See below).

If you are doing a project that involves implementation, you must submit your souce code in zip file. This zip file must include test cases and a manual in addition to source code. Your manual must describe how to run and test your code and must describe how you achieve empirical results described in your final report.

Here is a grading guideline for a final project report (pdf).

Project Presentations (11/29, 12/1)

• Final Report and Electronic Presentation Due (11/28)