Page not found. Your pixels are in another canvas.
A list of all the posts and pages found on the site. For you robots out there is an XML version available for digesting as well.
This is a page not in th emain menu
My collaborators and I started GenProg, “Genetic/Generic Program Repair (Depending on Whom You Ask)”, in 2008, maybe a month or so after GitHub was launched. My grad school research group was hip and up-to-date in our development tools, primarily evidenced by the fact that we used Subversion instead of CVS. Even in 2011, when we started putting together what became the ManyBugs dataset, it was still completely reasonable to find open source projects to study by trolling Sourceforge. Which is exactly what we did.
It’s summer conference time, and Phil Guo recently posted a handy how-to on “Attending Professional Conferences as a Newcomer”, which reminded me to finish this one up. His post is probably more actionable; here, I elaborate on a related piece of advice in a way that is hopefully complementary.
I loved speaking at the inaugural Papers We Love conference, co-located with Strange Loop, in the disarmingly cool city of St. Louis. I’d never been to or spoken at a PWL event before, but I’ve had a great time getting to know the community. The basic idea is a bunch of meetups where participants (a mix of industry and academic types) present/discuss academic papers that they, well, love.
I often write papers with students, or read students’ papers to provide comments, and I find myself saying the same things over and over, especially the first time out.* So: here’s a blog post I can point them to to (hopefully!) save us all some time and trouble. I plan to update it as I remember more things I say repeatedly.
[ETA: the Townhall will start at 5:45 in the Glass Oaks room, and will include time for discussion and questions, as well as a panel of experts and senior members of the community who will address the issue.]
(Context: I was on the ICSE 2016 PC and I am on the ICSE 2017 PC. I have never submitted more than three papers to ICSE.)
Two of my ongoing professional quests are to provide insight the processes of CS academia to those who would benefit from it and to increase the number of people who meet me and say “Oh, I know about you! Jean Yang mentioned you on her blog!” To those ends, over at her blog, Jean and I collaborated on some advice to prospective CS PhD students choosing between potential advisors, with lessons from our favorite reality TV show.
Hey, fellow Harvard alums: This year, when you get a ballot for the Harvard Board of Overseers Election in the snail-mail, instead of throwing it away without looking at it: don’t. Instead: vote.
(Should I be working on a grant proposal? Yes, yes I should. Am I writing a blog post instead? Yes, yes I am.)
SSSG, the ISR SE program’s weekly research symposium, typically features the SE PhD students (and, less commonly, faculty) presenting either their work, or surveys of the work of others. From time to time, though, we go a bit meta. This week, I gave a talk on talks, specifically on how I approach the task of structuring a research presentation . I was asked, and am happy, to send out/link to/otherwise circulate the slides. The tricky bit is that they’re heavy on illustrative/goofy pictures and light on, you know, content. I therefore added a bit of blog-based commentary to go with them (not the full talk, but enough to hopefully render the slides a bit more sensible). The notes roughly follow the slides.
Emery peer pressured me to blog, presumably rather than ranting entirely in Facebook posts, which is where a moderately shorter version of this first appeared. I admit this does feel a hair more legitimate. At least, I feel less compelled to apologize for the length.)
As PC co-chair for the Symposium for Search-Based Software Engineering in 2014, I participated in the Organizing Committee’s discussion about and decision to implement double-blind submission review for the main research track. On behalf of the Organizing Committee, I composed a post explaining the reasoning behind the experiment. That post was moved around as it became less relevant to the conference (…after reviews were concluded). Since more than two people have since asked for a link to it, it seemed reasonable to reproduce it here.
Published in Journal 1, 2009
This paper is about the number 1. The number 2 is left for future work.
Recommended citation: Your Name, You. (2009). "Paper Title Number 1." Journal 1. 1(1). http://academicpages.github.io/files/paper1.pdf
Published in Journal 1, 2010
This paper is about the number 2. The number 3 is left for future work.
Recommended citation: Your Name, You. (2010). "Paper Title Number 2." Journal 1. 1(2). http://academicpages.github.io/files/paper2.pdf
Published in Journal 1, 2015
This paper is about the number 3. The number 4 is left for future work.
Recommended citation: Your Name, You. (2015). "Paper Title Number 3." Journal 1. 1(3). http://academicpages.github.io/files/paper3.pdf
This is a description of your talk, which is a markdown files that can be all markdown-ified like any other post. Yay markdown!
This is a description of your conference proceedings talk, note the different field in type. You can put anything in this field.