BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Sira Vegas

Sira Vegas contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Software EngineeringGeneral Literature

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 17 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
4works
0followers
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

4 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Test cases as a measurement instrument in experimentation

Background: Test suites are frequently used to quantify relevant software attributes, such as quality or productivity. Problem: We have detected that the same response variable, measured using different test suites, yields different experiment results. Aims: Assess to which extent differences in test case construction influence measurement accuracy and experimental outcomes. Method: Two industry experiments have been measured using two different test suites, one generated using an ad-hoc method and another using equivalence partitioning. The accuracy of the measures has been studied using standard procedures, such as ISO 5725, Bland-Altman and Interclass Correlation Coefficients. Results: There are differences in the values of the response variables up to +-60%, depending on the test suite (ad-hoc vs. equivalence partitioning) used. Conclusions: The disclosure of datasets and analysis code is insufficient to ensure the reproducibility of SE experiments. Experimenters should disclose all experimental materials needed to perform independent measurement and re-analysis.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Empirical Standards for Software Engineering Research

Empirical Standards are natural-language models of a scientific community's expectations for a specific kind of study (e.g. a questionnaire survey). The ACM SIGSOFT Paper and Peer Review Quality Initiative generated empirical standards for research methods commonly used in software engineering. These living documents, which should be continuously revised to reflect evolving consensus around research best practices, will improve research quality and make peer review more effective, reliable, transparent and fair.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

A Procedure and Guidelines for Analyzing Groups of Software Engineering Replications

Context: Researchers from different groups and institutions are collaborating on building groups of experiments by means of replication (i.e., conducting groups of replications). Disparate aggregation techniques are being applied to analyze groups of replications. The application of unsuitable techniques to aggregate replication results may undermine the potential of groups of replications to provide in-depth insights from experiment results. Objectives: Provide an analysis procedure with a set of embedded guidelines to aggregate software engineering (SE) replication results. Method: We compare the characteristics of groups of replications for SE and other mature experimental disciplines such as medicine and pharmacology. In view of their differences, the limitations with regard to the joint data analysis of groups of SE replications and the guidelines provided in mature experimental disciplines to analyze groups of replications, we build an analysis procedure with a set of embedded guidelines specifically tailored to the analysis of groups of SE replications. We apply the proposed analysis procedure to a representative group of SE replications to illustrate its use. Results: All the information contained within the raw data should be leveraged during the aggregation of replication results. The analysis procedure that we propose encourages the use of stratified individual participant data and aggregated data in tandem to analyze groups of SE replications. Conclusion: The aggregation techniques used to analyze groups of replications should be justified in research articles. This will increase the reliability and transparency of joint results. The proposed guidelines should ease this endeavor.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Increasing Validity Through Replication: An Illustrative TDD Case

Context: Software Engineering (SE) experiments suffer from threats to validity that may impact their results. Replication allows researchers building on top of previous experiments' weaknesses and increasing the reliability of the findings. Objective: Illustrating the benefits of replication to increase the reliability of the findings and uncover moderator variables. Method: We replicate an experiment on Test-Driven-Development (TDD) and address some of its threats to validity and those of a previous replication. We compare the replications' results and hypothesize on plausible moderators impacting results. Results: Differences across TDD replications' results might be due to the operationalization of the response variables, the allocation of subjects to treatments, the allowance to work outside the laboratory, the provision of stubs, or the task. Conclusion: Replications allow examining the robustness of the findings, hypothesizing on plausible moderators influencing results, and strengthening the evidence obtained.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access