5,399 research outputs found
Fairness Testing: Testing Software for Discrimination
This paper defines software fairness and discrimination and develops a
testing-based method for measuring if and how much software discriminates,
focusing on causality in discriminatory behavior. Evidence of software
discrimination has been found in modern software systems that recommend
criminal sentences, grant access to financial products, and determine who is
allowed to participate in promotions. Our approach, Themis, generates efficient
test suites to measure discrimination. Given a schema describing valid system
inputs, Themis generates discrimination tests automatically and does not
require an oracle. We evaluate Themis on 20 software systems, 12 of which come
from prior work with explicit focus on avoiding discrimination. We find that
(1) Themis is effective at discovering software discrimination, (2)
state-of-the-art techniques for removing discrimination from algorithms fail in
many situations, at times discriminating against as much as 98% of an input
subdomain, (3) Themis optimizations are effective at producing efficient test
suites for measuring discrimination, and (4) Themis is more efficient on
systems that exhibit more discrimination. We thus demonstrate that fairness
testing is a critical aspect of the software development cycle in domains with
possible discrimination and provide initial tools for measuring software
discrimination.Comment: Sainyam Galhotra, Yuriy Brun, and Alexandra Meliou. 2017. Fairness
Testing: Testing Software for Discrimination. In Proceedings of 2017 11th
Joint Meeting of the European Software Engineering Conference and the ACM
SIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE),
Paderborn, Germany, September 4-8, 2017 (ESEC/FSE'17).
https://doi.org/10.1145/3106237.3106277, ESEC/FSE, 201
Report from GI-Dagstuhl Seminar 16394: Software Performance Engineering in the DevOps World
This report documents the program and the outcomes of GI-Dagstuhl Seminar
16394 "Software Performance Engineering in the DevOps World".
The seminar addressed the problem of performance-aware DevOps. Both, DevOps
and performance engineering have been growing trends over the past one to two
years, in no small part due to the rise in importance of identifying
performance anomalies in the operations (Ops) of cloud and big data systems and
feeding these back to the development (Dev). However, so far, the research
community has treated software engineering, performance engineering, and cloud
computing mostly as individual research areas. We aimed to identify
cross-community collaboration, and to set the path for long-lasting
collaborations towards performance-aware DevOps.
The main goal of the seminar was to bring together young researchers (PhD
students in a later stage of their PhD, as well as PostDocs or Junior
Professors) in the areas of (i) software engineering, (ii) performance
engineering, and (iii) cloud computing and big data to present their current
research projects, to exchange experience and expertise, to discuss research
challenges, and to develop ideas for future collaborations
Experience: Quality benchmarking of datasets used in software effort estimation
Data is a cornerstone of empirical software engineering (ESE) research and practice. Data underpin numerous
process and project management activities, including the estimation of development effort and the prediction
of the likely location and severity of defects in code. Serious questions have been raised, however, over the
quality of the data used in ESE. Data quality problems caused by noise, outliers, and incompleteness have
been noted as being especially prevalent. Other quality issues, although also potentially important, have
received less attention. In this study, we assess the quality of 13 datasets that have been used extensively
in research on software effort estimation. The quality issues considered in this article draw on a taxonomy
that we published previously based on a systematic mapping of data quality issues in ESE. Our contributions
are as follows: (1) an evaluation of the “fitness for purpose” of these commonly used datasets and (2) an
assessment of the utility of the taxonomy in terms of dataset benchmarking. We also propose a template
that could be used to both improve the ESE data collection/submission process and to evaluate other such
datasets, contributing to enhanced awareness of data quality issues in the ESE community and, in time, the
availability and use of higher-quality datasets
- …