- SEG-staff - INF Mailman

Fwd: ICSME 2025 Research Papers review assignments
by Timo Kehrer 18 Mar '25

18 Mar '25

Dear all, if anyone wants to serve as sub-reviewer for ICSME 2025, please let me know. These are the papers I got (PDFs attached, please do not share): (79) ADPP: Automated Data-centric Program Partitioning (81) Towards Better Understanding of Code Changes: An Algorithm to Remove Unintended Moves in GumTree (117) Understanding Commercial Low-code Application Bugs (122) Configurable Ensembles for Software Similarity: Challenging the Notion of Universal Metrics (146) Predicting Clone-proneness: An Exploratory Study with Deep Learning Models Best, Timo -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- Betreff: ICSME 2025 Research Papers review assignments Datum: Mon, 17 Mar 2025 13:48:39 +0100 Von: ICSME Research Papers Track <icsme2025_research(a)easychair.org> An: Timo Kehrer <timo.kehrer(a)inf.unibe.ch> [Sie erhalten nicht häufig E-Mails von icsme2025_research(a)easychair.org. Weitere Informationen, warum dies wichtig ist, finden Sie unter https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Dear Timo Kehrer, Thanks again for serving on the PC of ICSME 2025. This is a rather long email regarding the paper assignments, review instructions and review criteria, but please read it in full as it will make your job as a reviewer easier. We have received 188 submissions. 21 papers were withdrawn by the full paper deadline. We removed 18 other submissions ourselves for which the authors did not submit a full paper. Out of the remaining 149 papers, we desk-rejected 3 papers for violating submission guidelines. This leaves 146 papers for review. Given the PC size, we have assigned 4-5 papers per PC member. You will find your paper assignment at the end of this email. 1) FORMAT AND DOUBLE-BLIND REQUIREMENTS Papers must strictly adhere to the two-column IEEE conference proceedings format. Also, papers must be in PDF, anonymized, and must not exceed 10 pages (including figures and appendices) plus up to 2 pages that contain ONLY references. We have already screened papers regarding these requirements. If you identify any missed cases, please report them to us as soon as possible. For minor format violations (e.g., slightly different font or template), we have decided to handle these during the camera-ready stage. Please note such font/template violations in your reviews, but do not reject a paper because of them. Some papers are shorter than 10 pages. While these are shorter than the typical full paper length, our CfP does not have a minimum page length. Therefore, please judge these papers as full papers (i.e., whether the provided content contains all the necessary information for a full paper) rather than forming your opinion solely based on their length. Also, report to us immediately any missed cases of Conflicts of Interest. We ask you to NOT actively try to determine the authors of the papers. 2) REVIEW FORM Following the tradition of ICSME and other major conferences, our goal is not to reject papers, but to accept them. Therefore, please be *positive* and provide *constructive* reviews. To support you in preparing quality reviews and to provide transparent reviews to authors, the review form on EasyChair includes the following fields (for your convenience we also include the descriptions of fields in the form on EasyChair): * Overall recommendation: Reject, Weak reject, Weak accept, Accept, Accept & nominate for distinguished paper (only use ‘Accept & nominate for distinguished paper’ if you believe a paper is outstanding and should be considered for a Distinguished Paper award) * Reviewer’s confidence: Expert, Knowledgeable, Some familiarity, No familiarity * Paper summary: Brief summary of the paper (as you understand it) * Strengths (bullet list): Summarize the key strengths of the paper, in light of the review criteria. * Weaknesses (bullet list): Summarize the key weaknesses of the paper, in light of the review criteria. * Artifacts: Artifact provided and in line with what is declared in the paper. Artifact provided, but not inline with what is declared in the paper، Artifact not provided, but authors provide a convincing argument as to why it cannot be provided. Artifact not provided, without explanation (or a non-convincing explanation) * Summary comments for authors: Please provide a summary of your assessment to justify your overall recommendation. You may elaborate on the strengths and weaknesses and refer to the evaluation criteria (see below). Please do not mention your overall recommendation in the comments. * Questions for the authors: Please fill in this section ONLY if answers to these questions will affect your score/decision for this paper. Otherwise, clearly indicate "No Questions." * Confidential remarks for the program committee * Review criteria: see below 3) REVIEW CRITERIA For ICSME 2025 we use structured reviews, i.e., there will be a field for each review criterion on the review form. For your convenience, we also explain each criterion in the review form itself. 3.1) Originality and novelty The extent to which the contribution is sufficiently original and is clearly explained with respect to the state-of-the-art. Note that originality is not about providing surprising or unexpected results or the complexity of a proposed solution, but how the work advances the body-of-knowledge. If a paper lacks important references, we ask reviewers to provide suggestions, but avoid self-citations. When a reviewer’s own work is extremely relevant, they should always contact the PC co-chairs and provide potential alternatives of other related work. Replications that bring new knowledge are welcome. Do *not* reject papers just because: – the work is preliminary (especially if an idea is very novel) – the work is incremental (we always build on top of previous research) – it reports negative results – the idea is simple – you think some other technique that doesn’t exist yet would be better 3.2) Importance of contribution (significance) The extent to which the paper’s contributions can impact the ﬁeld of software maintenance and evolution, and, if needed, under which assumptions. Do *not* reject papers just because: – it does not include empirical evidence of impact (potential impact is more important) – you don’t like the topic or don’t ﬁnd it interesting (would someone in the community?) – the impact is not immediate for the software industry, the immediate impact may be in the software engineering research community (e.g., methodological contribution) 3.3) Soundness (proper use of research methods) The extent to which the paper’s contributions and/or innovations address its research questions and are supported by rigorous application of appropriate research methods. Papers should employ rigor in their research methodology (including choosing appropriate methods and procedures). Soundness is relative to claimed contributions (e.g., if a paper ﬁnds a correlation, and that is a notable discovery, do not critique it for not also demonstrating causality). Do *not* reject papers just because: – the methods are not the ones you would have selected (are they appropriate?) – the results may not generalize (papers should clearly explain assumptions and scope of contribution) – Balance the novelty with the extent of the evaluation (very novel papers may be more preliminary) Furthermore: – Avoid applying criteria for quantitative methods to qualitative methods or industrial studies (e.g., critiquing a case study for a “small N”). – Avoid critiquing a lack of a statistically significant difference for case study research; a lack of statistical difference can be a discovery, too (but must be supported by enough statistical power). – Avoid asking for the paper to do more than it claims if the demonstrated claims are sufficiently publishable (e.g., “I would publish this if it had also demonstrated knowledge transfer”). – Avoid relying on inexpert, anecdotal judgements (e.g., “I don’t know much about this but I played with it once and it didn’t work”). – Do take into account the effort it took to run the study; this contributes to the value of results. 3.4) Evaluation (where applicable) The paper’s claimed contributions are supported by empirical evidence. Papers claiming improvements (e.g., over state of the art or baseline techniques) should also design proper empirical evaluations to conﬁrm that such improvements are achieved. Judge papers based on the match between claims and evaluation. Do *not* reject papers just because: – further experiments would be possible, if the included ones are sufﬁcient to support the claims some hypothetical baseline was not considered, if such a baseline is not available and is not easily re-implementable – alternative design choices or implementations could provide even larger improvements – there is no empirical evaluation in a paper claiming a purely theoretical contribution (e.g., the authors demonstrate theoretically an improved computational complexity) 3.5) Quality of presentation The quality of writing, including clear descriptions, adequate use of the English language, absence of major ambiguity, clearly readable ﬁgures and tables, and adherence to the formatting instructions provided. Papers should be clear and concise, comprehensible to diverse audiences, contain sufﬁcient information to understand how an innovation works and to understand how data was obtained, analyzed, and interpreted. Do *not* reject papers just because: – it has easily ﬁxable spelling and grammar issues. – it does not use all of the page count – it does not follow a particular paper structure or order of sections Avoid asking for more detail unless you are certain there is space; if there is not enough space, provide concrete suggestions for what to cut. 3.6) Comparison to related work The extent to which the submission adequately reviews the prior literature. Do *not* reject papers just because: – minor prior related work is missing (only if missed work would have altered the study) – non-peer reviewed work (including arXiv preprints, theses, blog posts, or tech reports) or work that has been accepted after the submission deadline (you can point these out to the authors if relevant but they are not alone grounds to reject) 3.7) Replicability (if relevant) The extent to which the paper provides sufficient detail on methods and experiments, and shares information and artifacts that are practical and reasonable to share, to support replication and reproducibility. 4) AUTHOR QUESTIONS AND EARLY ACCEPTS/REJECTS When filling in the review form, please use the “Questions for the Authors” field wisely and ask questions *only* if you think that the answers will affect your scores and decision about the paper. Otherwise, clearly indicate "No Questions." Also, author responses will be only required for papers where answers to reviewers’ questions can affect the outcomes. For papers whose decision is already clear, we will send out direct accept/reject notifications at the beginning of the author response period. 5) REVIEW QUALITY ICSME aims for an inclusive and transparent review process. We encourage reviewers to be open, positive and professional: * Review authorship: PC members were invited because of their expertise. Therefore, we expect PC members to author their reviews, asking for sub-reviewers only for additional feedback. This means that reviewers may solicit help from others. However, reviewers should rewrite the review in their own words, and adjust the scores accordingly. The opinions should be represented as the PC member’s opinions, not those of a sub-reviewer. * Be clear about what is missing: Even if, in the view of a reviewer, a paper does not meet the standards required for acceptance, we encourage reviewers to highlight what, in their opinion, would be necessary to make it acceptable for ICSME (while acknowledging that ICSME submissions are subject to the limitations of conference papers regarding lengths, etc.). * Ethical issues: PC members should inform PC co-chairs if they detect any evidence related to plagiarism, concurrent submission, etc. * Update reviews: Reviews can be updated at any time, i.e., we encourage reviewers to follow the submitted reviews of submissions assigned to them and make adjustments even before the official discussion period. In summary, quality reviews are: * Constructive, explicitly identifying the merits of the work, as well as feasible ways of addressing any of its weaknesses. * Insightful, going deeply into the topic and the research methods. * Organized, helping the authors clearly understand the reviewer’s opinions of strengths and weaknesses of the work. * Impartial, demonstrating a commitment to the reviewing criteria of the conference, and not personal interests, speculation, or bias. To protect authors' rights and research confidentiality, ICSME 2025 does not currently allow the use of Generative AI or AI-assisted technologies such as ChatGPT or similar services for peer review. Reviewers, as well as authors and organizers, are expected to uphold the IEEE Code of Conduct. 6) LEAD REVIEWERS / DISCUSSION LEADS You will be designated as the lead reviewer for at most 2 of the papers you review. We ask lead reviewers to do the following: * Check reviews for any issues (e.g., quality, length) and work with reviewers to improve if needed; if necessary, bring issues to our attention. * Kickstart and moderate discussion among the reviewers. * Build consensus where possible. * Make a recommendation on the paper. * Write a meta-review to summarize the discussion among reviewers and explain the rationale behind their final recommendation (do not disclose reviewer identities in the meta-review). 7) REVIEWING TIMELINE * Assignment of papers: March 17, 2025 * First half of reviews due: April 2, 2025 * Second half of reviews due: April 22, 2025 * First review discussion period: April 23, 2025 - April 29, 2025 * Early decisions due: April 30, 2025 * Early decisions notification: May 7, 2025 * Author response period: May 8, 2025 - May 15, 2025 * Final discussion period: May 16, 2025 - May 27, 2025 Thank you again for helping us make ICSME 2025 a success. We appreciate that reviewing is hard work. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Matthias Galster and Dan Hao ICSME 2025 Research Track Program Co-Chairs ============== Paper Assignment ============== (Should the assignment in this email not match the paper assignment in EasyChair, please reach out and report the mismatch.) --------------------------------------------- (79) ADPP: Automated Data-centric Program Partitioning (81) Towards Better Understanding of Code Changes: An Algorithm to Remove Unintended Moves in GumTree (117) Understanding Commercial Low-code Application Bugs (122) Configurable Ensembles for Software Similarity: Challenging the Notion of Universal Metrics (146) Predicting Clone-proneness: An Exploratory Study with Deep Learning Models

2 1

Fwd: WG: Erfassen der Bau- und Unterhaltsbedürfnisse 2026
by Timo Kehrer 15 Mar '25

15 Mar '25

Please let me know if there are any requests (see below). It's in German, sorry, but AI translators will help... -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- Betreff: WG: Erfassen der Bau- und Unterhaltsbedürfnisse 2026 Datum: Mon, 3 Mar 2025 16:43:06 +0100 Von: Grunder, Priska (INF) <priska.grunder(a)unibe.ch> An: INF-DG-DOSI <dosi.inf(a)unibe.ch> Guten Nachmittag Wir haben wieder die Gelegenheit unsere Bau- und Unterhaltsbedürfnisse für 2026 einzugeben. Im Anhang eine Übersicht, welche der Eingaben aus früheren Jahren noch am Laufen sind. Diese müssen nicht neu eingegeben werden. Bitte gebt mir Eure Wünsche bis am Mittwoch, 9. April 2025 per Mail an. Alle Bedürfnisse, die nach dem 9.4.25 angegeben werden, können nicht mehr berücksichtigt werden. Danke und beste Grüsse Priska Grunder *Von:*Betrieb und Technik, Bau und Unterhalt <bub.bt(a)unibe.ch> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 28. Februar 2025 11:48 *An:* Grunder, Priska (INF) <priska.grunder(a)unibe.ch> *Betreff:* Erfassen der Bau- und Unterhaltsbedürfnisse 2026 Bau- und Unterhaltsbedürfnisse 2026 Klicken Siehier <http://clink.unibe.ch/m/1/90965240/p1-b25059-b35394fcbde146c5952894e9d3f209…> wenn Sie Probleme haben die Email zu lesen. *Erfassen der Bau- und Unterhaltsbedürfnisse 2026* Geht an: Geschäftsführende Direktorinnen und Direktoren aller Institute und Kliniken der Universität Bern Zur Information an: Sachbearbeiterinnen und Sachbearbeiter Personal aller Institute und Kliniken der Universität Bern Ausgenommen sind Universitäre Kliniken mit Standort Inselareal und einzelne Areale und Organisationseinheiten mit Verteiler nach Absprache. Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren Mit diesem Schreiben erhalten Sie von Bau und Unterhalt (BU) die notwendigen Informationen, zum Ablauf und zur Erfassung der Bau- und Unterhaltsbedürfnisse (BUB), an der Universität Bern. Dieses Informationsschreiben dient dazu, alle Organisationseinheiten über den allgemeinen Ablauf der Gesuchsanmeldung zu orientieren. Alle Institutionen, welche in den letzten Jahren bereits Gesuche eingereicht haben, werden von BU über die gemeldete Kontaktperson Bau (K-Bau) in den nächsten Tagen mit zusätzlichen Informationen separat angeschrieben. Sie müssen in diesem Fall keine weiteren Schritte unternehmen. Wenn Ihre Institution zum ersten Mal einen BUB einreichen, respektive eine neue Kontaktperson Bau (K-Bau) melden möchten, gehen Sie wie folgt vor: * Bestimmen Sie eine zuständige Person im Institut, welche alle Bau- und Unterhaltsbedürfnisse intern sammelt und nach Prioritäten bei BU im System erfasst. Eine Ansprechperson im Institut vereinfacht die Kommunikation und kann Doppelspurigkeit vermeiden. Diese Kontaktperson Bau (K-Bau) muss über kein bauliches/technisches Fachwissen verfügen. Es geht um den administrativen Teil des Prozesses. * *Link zum Anmeldeformular für K-Bau*: CAFM-Applikationen - Berechtigungsantrag <http://clink.unibe.ch/c/7/eyJhaSI6OTA5NjUyNDAsImUiOiJwcmlza2EuZ3J1bmRlckB1b…> Unter «Antrag für» ist «_BUB-Planon_» auszuwählen. Pro Organisationseinheit kann in der Regel nur eine Kontaktperson erfasst werden. * Bei der Erfassung von Anträgen im System ist zu beachten, dass Baubedürfnisse, welche strukturelle Änderungen an Räumen und Haustechnikanlagen erfordern (z.B. Umbauten, Umnutzungen, Versetzen / Abbrechen von Wänden, neue Medienanschlüsse, Klimatisierung, usw.) ausführlich begründet werden müssen. Das Erfassen von planbaren Bau- und Unterhaltsbedürfnissen für das *Jahr 2026*, ist bis und mit *Donnerstag, 10. April 2025 *möglich. Verspätet eintreffende Anträge können nicht mehr berücksichtigt werden. Die Eingabefrist ist mit dem für die bauliche Ausführung zuständigen Amt für Grundstücke und Gebäude (AGG) abgesprochen. Nach Ablauf der Frist werden die Gesuche aufgearbeitet und dem AGG übergeben. Wo möglich, wird BU die Situation vor Ort zusammen mit Ihnen und dem AGG vor den Semesterferien besichtigen. Das Umsetzen der bewilligten Gesuche ist im Laufe des nächsten Jahres vorgesehen. Dank diesem Zeitplan ist es möglich, viele der eingereichten Gesuche noch im laufenden Jahr genauer abzuklären und Untersuchungen in Auftrag zu geben. Das AGG hat dadurch einerseits die Möglichkeit die Kostensicherheit bei der Budgetierung zu erhöhen und andererseits aufgrund des fortgeschrittenen Planungsstandes auch grössere Massnahmen innerhalb eines Kalenderjahres zu realisieren. Für Rückmeldungen zu bereits realisierten oder nicht mehr aktuellen Massnahmen, die als abgeschlossen zu bezeichnen sind, danken wir Ihnen. Mit diesen Informationen unterstützen Sie uns, die Datenbank aktuell zu halten. Haben Sie Fragen zum Ablauf oder dem Vorgehen? Sie finden die zuständige Person Bau und Unterhalt für die entsprechende Liegenschaft auf der Website (Bau und Unterhalt <http://clink.unibe.ch/c/7/eyJhaSI6OTA5NjUyNDAsImUiOiJwcmlza2EuZ3J1bmRlckB1b…>) im Dokument "Zuständigkeit BU nach Liegenschaft". Besten Dank für die Kenntnisnahme und Ihre geschätzte Mitarbeit. Freundliche Grüsse Bau und Unterhalt ©2025 Universität Bern Impressum <http://clink.unibe.ch/c/7/eyJhaSI6OTA5NjUyNDAsImUiOiJwcmlza2EuZ3J1bmRlckB1b…> Rechtliche Hinweise <http://clink.unibe.ch/c/7/eyJhaSI6OTA5NjUyNDAsImUiOiJwcmlza2EuZ3J1bmRlckB1b…><http://clink.unibe.ch/c/7/eyJhaSI6OTA5NjUyNDAsImUiOiJwcmlza2EuZ3J1bmRlckB1b…> Universität Bern Hochschulstrasse 6 3012 Bern Logo Universität Bern (schwarz) <http://clink.unibe.ch/c/7/eyJhaSI6OTA5NjUyNDAsImUiOiJwcmlza2EuZ3J1bmRlckB1b…>

1 0

Fwd: SympGraph 25
by Timo Kehrer 13 Mar '25

13 Mar '25

Dear all, if anybody is extensively working with graphs, there will be a symposium just next door in August, with low entry barrier for participation / presentation. Best, Timo -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- Betreff: SympGraph 25 Datum: Thu, 6 Mar 2025 08:07:44 +0100 Von: Riesen, Kaspar (INF) <kaspar.riesen(a)unibe.ch> An: Riesen, Kaspar (INF) <kaspar.riesen(a)unibe.ch> Dear Colleagues, I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to inform you about the upcoming *1st Swiss Symposium on Graph-Based Representation in Computer Science (SympGraph 25),* a symposium dedicated to graph representations in computer science, which will take place on August 21 this year at the University of Bern (https://sympgraph25.inf.unibe.ch). The overarching goal of SympGraph is to bring together PhD students and other interested researchers who are conducting research in any form using graphs as the underlying data structure. SympGraph offers participating PhD students a platform to present their current research projects, e.g. in a poster session or in the form of short oral presentations. Two talks by renowned experts in the field of graph-based data analysis will provide a framework for general exchange among peers. The symposium will provide new insights for the doctoral students' own research and – in the best case – the exchange will lead to new collaborations. We would be grateful if you could forward this information to your PhD students and postdocs who might be interested in attending or submitting contributions. We thank you in advance for your support and look forward to welcoming your students and postdocs at SympGraph 2025. Kind regards, Kaspar ------------------------------------------------------- PD Dr. Kaspar Riesen Head of the Pattern Recognition Group Institute of Computer Science Faculty of Science University of Bern, Switzerland kaspar.riesen(a)unibe.ch -------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Seminar Topics
by Timo Kehrer 16 Feb '25

16 Feb '25

Dear all, anyone who did supervise a seminar/thesis in fall semester 2024/25: Could you please send me a slide (or two), similar to the one attached, of your project(s). Doesn't have to be comprehensive, but I'd like to show some of the recently completed student projects in the seminar on Tuesday morning. Deadline if I shall include yours: Tuesday 9:00. (please just use my ppt as a template, if possible, so I can directly include the slide) Best, Timo

1 0

Friendly Reminder: Updating Seminar Topics
by van Dok, Yael Annika (INF) 13 Feb '25

13 Feb '25

Dear all This is to remind you that today is the deadline for inserting new seminar topics and updating existing ones in the GitLab. Please make sure that your topics are up to date INCLUDING information about any assigned students. Roman B. and I reorganised the overview page, thereby including new instructions. Use it as a reference. Also, please make sure that your actual topic files follow the template structure and use proper formatting. I noticed that some of you include HTML in your topic files - please refrain from doing so and use plain Markdown. These files go into the website code as Markdown files, and I don't want to sanitise all the files beforehand to clear out HTML tags and unnecessary whitespace. Also please check your files for typos 🙂 Thank you all for your collaboration. Best Yael

1 0

Fwd: Fwd: Invitation and Flyer Workshops Racism
by Timo Kehrer 13 Feb '25

13 Feb '25

FYI -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- Betreff: Fwd: Invitation and Flyer Workshops Racism Datum: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 17:52:49 +0100 Von: Schurr, Carolin (GIUB) <carolin.schurr(a)unibe.ch> An: Raissig, Michael Thomas (IPS) <michael.raissig(a)unibe.ch>, Susanne Reffert <sreffert(a)itp.unibe.ch>, Kehrer, Timo Benjamin (INF) <timo.kehrer(a)unibe.ch>, Katayev, Dmitry (DCBP) <dmitry.katayev(a)unibe.ch>, Meister, Peter (IZB) <peter.meister(a)unibe.ch>, Das, Anupam (DCBP) <anupam.das(a)unibe.ch>, Spuhler, Joana Tamara (STUDENTS) <joana.spuhler(a)students.unibe.ch> Dear all, can you please all circulate the invitation to the Uni Bern’s Action week against racism in your departments/institutes/ Stände! Thanks! Best Carolin Hi everybody As part of the 15th Action Week against Racism of the City of Bern, I organized three workshops on the topic of racism and racist hate speech in university context. Two workshops are aimed specifically at students and university lecturers and staff members of Colour and those who experienced racism.In this empowerment-workshops, a safer and braver space will be created in which experiences and concerns as well as perspectives and visions for a racism-free university will be exchanged and developed. We will empower each other and work together to develop strategies for overcoming experiences of racism and racist hate speech. These workshops for students and staff members will be held in English. The third workshop is open to all members of the university and serves as a space for reflection on the topics of individual, structural and institutional racism and exclusion in education. We will reflect on often unconscious discriminatory and racist mechanisms and develop possible courses of action. This workshop will be held in German. Further information can be found under the following link or in the attached flyer:University: Action week against racism 2025 at the University of Bern - University of Bern <https://www.unibe.ch/university/portrait/self_image/equal_opportunities/eve…> I would be grateful if you could help promote the workshops through all possible channels and display the flyers in your offices. It would also be great if you could directly refer students and employees who experience racism to the empowerment workshops. And I hope to see some of you at the empowerment workshop on March 20 or 21. Thank you very much for spreading the word! Best regards Gina ___________________________________ Gina Vega (sie) Wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiterin Vizerektorat Qualität und Nachhaltige Entwicklung Abteilung für Chancengleichheit Universität Bern Hochschulstrasse 6 3012 Bern, Schweiz Tel. +41 31 684 32 43 Mo/Di/Do gina.vega(a)unibe.ch www.unibe.ch/chancengleichheit <http://www.unibe.ch/chancengleichheit> www.unibe.ch/rassismus <http://www.unibe.ch/rassismus> <https://www.unibe.ch/universitaet/portraet/selbstverstaendnis/chancengleich…> <https://www.unibe.ch/universitaet/portraet/selbstverstaendnis/chancengleich…> *Anmeldung zu den Workshops unter:Universität: Aktionswoche gegen Rassismus 2025 an der Universität Bern - Universität Bern <https://www.unibe.ch/universitaet/portraet/selbstverstaendnis/chancengleich…>*

1 0

Academic Writing Courses
by Timo Kehrer 30 Jan '25

30 Jan '25

... might be interesting for some of you: https://www.ub.unibe.ch/recherche/fachinformationen/portal_medizin_und_phar… Best, Timo

1 0

Seminar-Presentations (Rubik's Cube)
by Bard, Jan-Andrea (INF) 24 Jan '25

24 Jan '25

Seminar-presentations 10:30 am: Tobias Aubert 11:00 am: Dario Marti ________________________________________________________________________________ Microsoft Teams Benötigen Sie Hilfe?<https://aka.ms/JoinTeamsMeeting?omkt=de-DE> Jetzt an der Besprechung teilnehmen<https://teams.microsoft.com/l/meetup-join/19%3ameeting_MmExY2E2YmEtMjAzNi00…> Besprechungs-ID: 381 911 993 797 Kennung: eW77M7t4 ________________________________ Für Organisatoren: Besprechungsoptionen<https://teams.microsoft.com/meetingOptions/?organizerId=bd5bd8fe-9a1f-45cb-…> [https://unibeidbistoragedeskmgmt.blob.core.windows.net/intune-blob-storage/…] https://serviceportal.unibe.ch/sp ________________________________________________________________________________

1 0

Fwd: [SEWORLD] CfP: PROMISE 2025 - 21st International Conference on Predictive Models and Data Analytics in Software Engineering
by Timo Kehrer 16 Jan '25

16 Jan '25

... interesting specialized event co-located with FSE; the CFP explcitly welcomes negative results, if we sth in our fundus ;-) Best, Timo -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- Betreff: [SEWORLD] CfP: PROMISE 2025 - 21st International Conference on Predictive Models and Data Analytics in Software Engineering Weitersenden-Datum: Mon, 13 Jan 2025 03:53:20 +0000 Weitersenden-Von: SEWORLD Moderator <seworld-moderator(a)sigsoft.org> Weitersenden-An: seworld(a)sigsoft.org Datum: Fri, 10 Jan 2025 22:50:25 +0000 Von: Yiming Tang <seworld(a)volunteer.acm.org> An: SEWORLD(a)SIGSOFT.ORG <SEWORLD(a)SIGSOFT.ORG> Kopie (CC): wshang(a)uwaterloo.ca <wshang(a)uwaterloo.ca>, Lili Wei, Prof. <lili.wei(a)mcgill.ca> =================================================================== 21st International Conference on Predictive Models and Data Analytics in Software Engineering (PROMISE 2025) https://conf.researchr.org/home/promise-2025 June, 2025, Trondheim, Norway Co-located with the International Conference on the Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE 2025) Submit your papers by February 25th, 2025 https://conf.researchr.org/home/promise-2025#Call-for-Papers =================================================================== The International Conference on Predictive Models and Data Analytics in Software Engineering (PROMISE) is an annual forum for researchers and practitioners to present, discuss and exchange ideas, results, expertise and experiences in construction and/or application of predictive models, artificial intelligence, and data analytics in software engineering. PROMISE encourages researchers to publicly share their data in order to provide interdisciplinary research between the software engineering and data mining communities, and seek for verifiable and repeatable experiments that are useful in practice. === Important Dates === - Abstract submission: Feb 18th, 2025 AoE - Paper submission: Feb 25th, 2025 AoE - Author notification: Mar 24th, 2025 AoE - Camera-ready: Apr 24th, 2025 AoE - Conference Date: June, 2025 === Types of Submissions === Technical papers (10 pages) * PROMISE accepts a wide range of papers where AI tools have been applied to SE such as predictive modeling and other AI methods. Both positive and negative results are welcome, though negative results should still be based on rigorous research and provide details on lessons learned. Industrial papers (2-4 pages) * Results, challenges, lessons learned from industrial applications of software analytics. New idea papers (2-4 pages) * Novel insights or ideas that may yet to be fully tested. Journal First * Selected papers will be invited for journal first presentations at PROMISE. Details to follow. === Topics of Interest === PROMISE papers can explore any of the following topics (or more). Application-oriented papers: * prediction of cost, effort, quality, defects, business value; * quantification and prediction of other intermediate or final properties of interest in software development regarding people, process or product aspects; * using predictive models and data analytics in different settings, e.g. lean/agile, waterfall, distributed, community-based software development; * dealing with changing environments in software engineering tasks; * dealing with multiple-objectives in software engineering tasks; * using predictive models and software data analytics in policy and decision-making. Ethically-aligned papers: * Can we apply and adjust our AI-for-SE tools (including predictive models) to handle ethical non-functional requirements such as inclusiveness, transparency, oversight and accountability, privacy, security, reliability, safety, diversity and fairness? Theory-oriented papers: * model construction, evaluation, sharing and reusability; * interdisciplinary and novel approaches to predictive modelling and data analytics that contribute to the theoretical body of knowledge in software engineering; * verifying/refuting/challenging previous theory and results; * combinations of predictive models and search-based software engineering; * the effectiveness of human experts vs. automated models in predictions. Data-oriented papers: * data quality, sharing, and privacy; * curated data sets made available for the community to use; ethical issues related to data collection and sharing; * metrics; * tools and frameworks to support researchers and practitioners to collect data and construct models to share/repeat experiments and results. Validity-oriented papers: * replication and repeatability of previous work using predictive modelling and data analytics in software engineering; * assessment of measurement metrics for reporting the performance of predictive models; * evaluation of predictive models with industrial collaborators. === Submissions === PROMISE 2025 submissions must meet the following criteria: * be original work, not published or under review elsewhere while being considered; * conform to the submission format requirements of the FSE 2025 Companion proceedings;<https://conf.researchr.org/track/fse-2025/fse-2025-how-to-submit#submission…> * not exceed 10 (4) pages for technical (industrial, new-ideas) papers including references; * be written in English; * be prepared for double blind review * Exception: for data-oriented papers, authors may elect not to use double blind by placing a footnote on page 1 saying “Offered for single-blind review”. * be submitted via HotPRC and the submission link will be posted shortly. * on submission, please choose the paper category appropriately, i.e., technical (main track, 10 pages max); industrial (4 pages max); and new idea papers (4 pages max). To satisfy the double blind requirement submissions must meet the following criteria: * no author names and affiliations in the body and metadata of the submitted paper; * self-citations are written in the third person; * no references to the authors personal, lab, or university website; * no references to personal accounts on GitHub, bitbucket, Google Drive, etc. === Publication and Attendance === Accepted papers will be published in the ACM Digital Library within its International Conference Proceedings Series and will be available electronically via ACM Digital Library. Each accepted paper needs to have one registration at the full conference rate and be presented in person at the conference. === Evaluation === Submissions will be peer reviewed by at least three experts from the international program committee. Submissions will be evaluated on the basis of their originality, importance of contribution, soundness, evaluation, quality, and consistency of presentation, and appropriate comparison to related work. === Green Open Access === Similar to other leading SE conferences, PROMISE supports and encourages Green Open Access, i.e., self-archiving. Authors can archive their papers on their personal home page, an institutional repository of their employer, or at an e-print server such as arXiv (preferred). Also, given that PROMISE papers heavily rely on software data, we would like to draw authors that leverage data scraped from GitHub of GitHub’s Terms of Service, which require that “publications resulting from that research are open access”. We also strongly encourage authors to submit their tools and data to Zenodo, which adheres to FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable and re-usable) principles and provides DOI versioning. ============================================================ To contribute to SEWORLD, send your submission to mailto:seworld@sigsoft.org http://sigsoft.org/resources/seworld.html provides more information on SEWORLD as well as links to a complete archive of messages posted to the list. ============================================================

1 0

Fwd: Invitation: Mini-Symposium on Software Engineering Research – January 10th
by Timo Kehrer 07 Jan '25

07 Jan '25

Dear all, to those I have not seen or chatted with yet: Happy new year! Please notice the invitation below, the talks are open for everybody who is interested. Best, Timo -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- Betreff: Invitation: Mini-Symposium on Software Engineering Research – January 10th Datum: Tue, 7 Jan 2025 11:24:38 +0100 Von: Alberto Bacchelli <bacchelli(a)ifi.uzh.ch> An: SoSy Mailing List <sosy(a)lists.ifi.uzh.ch>, April Wang <april.wang(a)inf.ethz.ch>, Salvaneschi, Guido <guido.salvaneschi(a)unisg.ch>, Gabriele Bavota <gabriele.bavota(a)usi.ch>, Carlo A. Furia <furiac(a)usi.ch>, Timo Kehrer <timo.kehrer(a)unibe.ch> Kopie (CC): Bogdan Vasilescu <vasilescu(a)cmu.edu>, Thomas D Latoza <tlatoza(a)gmu.edu>, Maurício Aniche <Mauricio.aniche(a)adyen.com> Dear all, I am delighted to invite you to a mini-symposium featuring talks by three outstanding researchers in software engineering. This event will be on the morning of **this Friday, January 10th**, 2025, in Room 2.A.10, of the BIN building (Binzmühlestrasse 14) at the University of Zurich. The mini-symposium is part of the events surrounding the PhD defense of Pavlína Wurzel Gonçalves. It is an excellent opportunity to hear about the speakers' latest research and engage in discussions with the speakers and other participants. Program - 09:00–09:30, Arrival and Welcome - 09:30–10:30, Prof. Dr. Bogdan Vasilescu, The Strength of Weak Ties in Open-Source Software Development Networks - 10:30–11:30, Dr. Mauricio Aniche, Test Selection at Adyen: saving time and resources - 11:30–12:30, Prof. Dr. Thomas LaToza, Sharing Programming Expertise We welcome all software engineering researchers and enthusiasts to join us for this exciting event. Feel free to extend this invitation to any interested people. Attached to this email, you find more information about the talks and speakers. Please respond to this email to confirm your attendance and let me know how many people will be joining you, so I can ensure we have enough coffee and refreshments for everyone in the morning. I look forward to seeing you there! Warm regards, Alberto

1 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

SEG-staff