@proceedings {16554,
	title = {Challenging Machine Learning Algorithms in Predicting Vulnerable JavaScript Functions},
	year = {2019},
	pages = {8-14},
	publisher = {IEEE Press},
	keywords = {select:itsec},
	author = {Rudolf Ferenc and P{\'e}ter Heged{\H u}s and P{\'e}ter Gyimesi and G{\'a}bor Antal and D{\'e}nes B{\'a}n and Tibor Gyimothy}
}
@article {16565,
	title = {Code Coverage Differences of Java Bytecode and Source Code},
	journal = {Software Quality Journal},
	volume = {27},
	year = {2019},
	month = {03/2019},
	pages = {79-123},
	abstract = {Many software testing fields, like white-box testing, test case generation, test prioritization, and fault localization, depend on code coverage measurement. If used as an overall completeness measure, the minor inaccuracies of coverage data reported by a tool do not matter that much; however, in certain situations, they can lead to serious confusion. For example, a code element that is falsely reported as covered can introduce false confidence in the test. This work investigates code coverage measurement issues for the Java programming language. For Java, the prevalent approach to code coverage measurement is using bytecode instrumentation due to its various benefits over source code instrumentation. As we have experienced, bytecode instrumentation-based code coverage tools produce different results than source code instrumentation-based ones in terms of the reported items as covered. We report on an empirical study to compare the code coverage results provided by tools using the different instrumentation types for Java coverage measurement on the method level. In particular, we want to find out how much a bytecode instrumentation approach is inaccurate compared to a source code instrumentation method. The differences are systematically investigated both in quantitative (how much the outputs differ) and in qualitative terms (what the causes for the differences are). In addition, the impact on test prioritization and test suite reduction{\textemdash}a possible application of coverage measurement{\textemdash}is investigated in more detail as well.},
	keywords = {Code coverage, Coverage tools, Empirical study, Java bytecode instrumentation, select:quality, Source code instrumentation, White-box testing},
	doi = {10.1007/s11219-017-9389-z},
	url = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11219-017-9389-z$\#$citeas},
	author = {Ferenc Horv{\'a}th and Tam{\'a}s Gergely and {\'A}rp{\'a}d Besz{\'e}des and D{\'a}vid Tengeri and Gerg{\H o} Balogh and Tibor Gyimothy}
}
@proceedings {hodovan2017coarsehdd,
	title = {Coarse Hierarchical Delta Debugging},
	year = {2017},
	month = {09/2017},
	pages = {194{\textendash}203},
	publisher = {IEEE Computer Society},
	address = {Shanghai, China},
	keywords = {select:itsec2},
	author = {Hodov{\'a}n, Ren{\'a}ta and {\'A}kos Kiss and Tibor Gyim{\'o}thy}
}
@article {HGB17,
	title = {Code Coverage Differences of {Java} Bytecode and Source Code Instrumentation Tools},
	journal = {Software Quality Journal},
	year = {2017},
	publisher = {Springer US},
	doi = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11219-017-9389-z},
	author = {Horv{\'a}th, Ferenc and Tam{\'a}s Gergely and {\'A}rp{\'a}d Besz{\'e}des and Tengeri, D{\'a}vid and Gerg{\H o} Balogh and Tibor Gyim{\'o}thy}
}
@conference {KHF16,
	title = {A Code Refactoring Dataset and Its Assessment Regarding Software Maintainability},
	booktitle = {Proceedings of the 23rd IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering (SANER 2016)},
	year = {2016},
	pages = {599{\textendash}603},
	publisher = {IEEE Computer Society},
	organization = {IEEE Computer Society},
	address = {Suita, Osaka, Japan},
	abstract = {It is very common in various fields that there is a gap between theoretical results and their practical applications. This is true for code refactoring as well, which has a solid theoretical background while being used in development practice at the same time. However, more and more studies suggest that developers perform code refactoring entirely differently than the theory would suggest. Our paper encourages the further investigation of code refactorings in practice by providing an excessive open dataset of source code metrics and applied refactorings through several releases of 7 open-source systems. As a first step of processing this dataset, we examined the quality attributes of the refactored source code classes and the values of source code metrics improved by those refactorings. Our early results show that lower maintainability indeed triggers more code refactorings in practice and these refactorings significantly decrease complexity, code lines, coupling and clone metrics. However, we observed a decrease in comment related metrics in the refactored code.},
	keywords = {Code refactoring, Empirical study, Software maintainability},
	doi = {10.1109/SANER.2016.42},
	url = {http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7476680/},
	author = {K{\'a}d{\'a}r, Istv{\'a}n and P Heged{\H u}s and Rudolf Ferenc and Tibor Gyim{\'o}thy}
}
@conference {SNF14,
	title = {A Case Study of Refactoring Large-Scale Industrial Systems to Efficiently Improve Source Code Quality},
	booktitle = {Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Computational Science and Its Applications (ICCSA 2014)},
	series = {Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS)},
	volume = {8583},
	year = {2014},
	month = {jun},
	pages = {524{\textendash}540},
	publisher = {Springer-Verlag},
	organization = {Springer-Verlag},
	address = {Guimar{\~a}es, Portugal},
	abstract = {Refactoring source code has many benefits (e.g. improving maintainability, robustness and source code quality), but it takes time away from other implementation tasks, resulting in developers neglecting refactoring steps during the development process. But what happens when they know that the quality of their source code needs to be improved and they can get the extra time and money to refactor the code? What will they do? What will they consider the most important for improving source code quality? What sort of issues will they address first or last and how will they solve them? In our paper, we look for answers to these questions in a case study of refactoring large-scale industrial systems where developers participated in a project to improve the quality of their software systems. We collected empirical data of over a thousand refactoring patches for 5 systems with over 5 million lines of code in total, and we found that developers really optimized the refactoring process to significantly improve the quality of these systems.},
	keywords = {refactoring, Software engineering, software quality},
	doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-09156-3_37},
	url = {https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007\%2F978-3-319-09156-3_37},
	author = {Sz{\H o}ke, G{\'a}bor and Csaba Nagy and Rudolf Ferenc and Tibor Gyim{\'o}thy}
}
@conference {LHF14,
	title = {The Connection of the Bug Density and Maintainability of Classes},
	booktitle = {8th International Workshop on Software Quality and Maintainability},
	series = {SQM},
	year = {2014},
	note = {Presentation only},
	month = {feb},
	address = {Antwerp, Belgium},
	abstract = {Measuring software product maintainability is a central issue in software engineering which led to a number of different practical quality models. Besides system level assessments it is also desirable that these models provide technical quality information at source code element level (e.g. classes, methods) to aid the improvement of the software. Although many existing models give an ordered list of source code elements that should be improved, it is unclear how these improvements affect other important quality indicators of the system, e.g. bug density. In this paper we empirically investigate the connection of bug numbers in the classes of different open-source systems and the class level maintainability measures of our ColumbusQM probabilistic quality model using open-access bug datasets. We show that classes with lower maintainability score contain significantly more bugs than more maintainable classes. Moreover, in terms of correctness and completeness, ColumbusQM competes with statistical and machine learning prediction models especially trained on the bug data using product metrics as predictors. This is a great achievement in the light of that our model needs no training and its purpose is different (e.g. to estimate testability, or development costs) than those of the bug prediction models. In summary, we show that improving the maintainability of a software according to the suggestions of our quality model will expectedly also reduce its bug density.},
	keywords = {Bug density, Bug prediction, Class level maintainability, ColumbusQM, ISO/IEC 25010, Software maintainability},
	author = {Lad{\'a}nyi, Gergely and P Heged{\H u}s and Rudolf Ferenc and Istv{\'a}n Siket and Tibor Gyim{\'o}thy}
}
@conference {16308,
	title = {Code Coverage-Based Regression Test Selection and Prioritization in {WebKit}},
	year = {2012},
	publisher = {IEEE Computer Society},
	organization = {IEEE Computer Society},
	author = {{\'A}rp{\'a}d Besz{\'e}des and Tam{\'a}s Gergely and Schrettner, L. and Judit J{\'a}sz and L{\'a}szl{\'o} Lang{\'o} and Tibor Gyim{\'o}thy}
}
@conference {16329,
	title = {A Cost Model Based on Software Maintainability},
	booktitle = {Proceedings of the 28th IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM)},
	year = {2012},
	pages = {316{\textendash}325},
	publisher = {IEEE Comput. Soc. Press},
	organization = {IEEE Comput. Soc. Press},
	address = {Los Alamitos},
	author = {Tibor Bakota and P Heged{\H u}s and G. Lad{\'a}nyi and K{\"o}rtv{\'e}lyesi, P and Rudolf Ferenc and Tibor Gyim{\'o}thy},
	editor = {Paolo Tonella and Massimiliano Di Penta and Jonathan I Maletic}
}
@conference {Nagy2011SQ,
	title = {Complexity Measures in {4GL} Environment},
	booktitle = {Computational Science and Its Applications - ICCSA 2011, Lecture Notes in Computer Science},
	series = {Lecture Notes in Computer Science},
	volume = {6786},
	year = {2011},
	pages = {293-309},
	publisher = {Springer Berlin / Heidelberg},
	organization = {Springer Berlin / Heidelberg},
	author = {Csaba Nagy and L{\'a}szl{\'o} Vid{\'a}cs and Rudolf Ferenc and Tibor Gyim{\'o}thy and Kocsis, F. and I. Kov{\'a}cs}
}
@conference {THJ10,
	title = {Comparison of Different Impact Analysis Methods and Programmer{\textquoteright}s Opinion {\textendash} an Empirical Study},
	booktitle = {Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on the Principles and Practice of Programming in Java (PPPJ{\textquoteright}10)},
	year = {2010},
	pages = {109-118},
	publisher = {ACM},
	organization = {ACM},
	author = {T{\'o}th, G. and P Heged{\H u}s and Judit J{\'a}sz and {\'A}rp{\'a}d Besz{\'e}des and Tibor Gyim{\'o}thy}
}
@conference {TFV10,
	title = {Complex Event Processing Synergies with Predictive Analytics},
	booktitle = {Proceedings of the 4th ACM International Conference on Distributed Event-Based Systems (DEBS{\textquoteright}10), Posters Session},
	year = {2010},
	pages = {95-96},
	publisher = {ACM},
	organization = {ACM},
	author = {T{\'o}th, G. and F{\"u}l{\"o}p, L.J. and L{\'a}szl{\'o} Vid{\'a}cs and {\'A}rp{\'a}d Besz{\'e}des and Demeter, H. and Farkas, L. and Tibor Gyim{\'o}thy}
}
@article {VBG09,
	title = {Combining preprocessor slicing with {C}/{C++} language slicing},
	journal = {Science of Computer Programming},
	volume = {74},
	number = {7},
	year = {2009},
	note = {Special Issue on Program Comprehension (ICPC 2008)},
	pages = {399-413},
	publisher = {Elsevier},
	keywords = {relate:quality},
	author = {L{\'a}szl{\'o} Vid{\'a}cs and {\'A}rp{\'a}d Besz{\'e}des and Tibor Gyim{\'o}thy}
}
@conference {VJB08,
	title = {Combining Preprocessor Slicing with {C}/{C++} Language Slicing},
	booktitle = {Proceedings of the 16th IEEE International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC{\textquoteright}08)},
	year = {2008},
	month = {jun},
	pages = {163-171},
	keywords = {relate:quality, software quality selected},
	author = {L{\'a}szl{\'o} Vid{\'a}cs and Judit J{\'a}sz and {\'A}rp{\'a}d Besz{\'e}des and Tibor Gyim{\'o}thy}
}
@conference {BBF08,
	title = {Continuous Software Quality Supervision Using {SourceInventory} and {Columbus}},
	booktitle = {Research Demonstrations of 30th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE{\textquoteright}08)},
	year = {2008},
	pages = {931-932},
	author = {Tibor Bakota and {\'A}rp{\'a}d Besz{\'e}des and Rudolf Ferenc and Tibor Gyim{\'o}thy}
}
@conference {DBLP:conf/icsm/BakotaFG07,
	title = {Clone Smells in Software Evolution},
	booktitle = {ICSM},
	year = {2007},
	pages = {24-33},
	author = {Tibor Bakota and Rudolf Ferenc and Tibor Gyim{\'o}thy}
}
@conference {NLB07,
	title = {Code factoring in {GCC} on different intermediate languages},
	booktitle = {Proceedings of the 10th Symposium on Programming Languages and Software Tools (SPLST{\textquoteright}07)},
	year = {2007},
	month = {jun},
	pages = {79-95},
	author = {Csaba Nagy and G. L{\'o}ki and {\'A}rp{\'a}d Besz{\'e}des and Tibor Gyim{\'o}thy}
}
@conference {BGJ07,
	title = {Computation of {Static Execute After} Relation with Applications to Software Maintenance},
	booktitle = {Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM{\textquoteright}07)},
	year = {2007},
	month = {oct},
	pages = {295-304},
	keywords = {software quality selected},
	author = {{\'A}rp{\'a}d Besz{\'e}des and Tam{\'a}s Gergely and Judit J{\'a}sz and T{\'o}th, G. and Tibor Gyim{\'o}thy and V. Rajlich}
}
@booklet {bicsak:cfg,
	title = {Constructing control flows graphs of binary executable programs at post-link time},
	year = {2007},
	author = {A. Bics{\'a}k and {\'A}kos Kiss and Rudolf Ferenc and Tibor Gyim{\'o}thy}
}
@article {Kalman200690,
	title = {Compacting XML documents},
	journal = {Information and Software Technology},
	volume = {48},
	number = {2},
	year = {2006},
	pages = {90 - 106},
	keywords = {XML semantics},
	issn = {0950-5849},
	doi = {10.1016/j.infsof.2005.03.001},
	url = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950584905000315},
	author = {M. K{\'a}lm{\'a}n and F. Havasi and Tibor Gyim{\'o}thy}
}
@conference {BFG05,
	title = {{Columbus: A Reverse Engineering Approach}},
	booktitle = {Proceedings of the 13th IEEE Workshop on Software Technology and Engineering Practice (STEP 2005)},
	year = {2005},
	month = {sep},
	pages = {93-96},
	publisher = {IEEE Computer Society},
	organization = {IEEE Computer Society},
	author = {{\'A}rp{\'a}d Besz{\'e}des and Rudolf Ferenc and Tibor Gyim{\'o}thy}
}
@conference {BFG04,
	title = {{CSiBE Benchmark: One Year Perspective and Plans}},
	booktitle = {Proceedings of the 2004 GCC Developers{\textquoteright} Summit},
	year = {2004},
	month = {jun},
	pages = {7-15},
	author = {{\'A}rp{\'a}d Besz{\'e}des and Rudolf Ferenc and Tam{\'a}s Gergely and Tibor Gyim{\'o}thy and G. L{\'o}ki and L{\'a}szl{\'o} Vid{\'a}cs}
}
@conference {DBLP:conf/splst/KalmanHG03,
	title = {Compacting XML Documents},
	booktitle = {SPLST},
	year = {2003},
	pages = {137-151},
	author = {M. K{\'a}lm{\'a}n and F. Havasi and Tibor Gyim{\'o}thy}
}
@conference {FBT02,
	title = {{Columbus {\textendash} Reverse Engineering Tool and Schema for C++}},
	booktitle = {Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM{\textquoteright}02)},
	year = {2002},
	month = {oct},
	pages = {172-181},
	publisher = {IEEE Computer Society},
	organization = {IEEE Computer Society},
	keywords = {relate:quality},
	author = {Rudolf Ferenc and {\'A}rp{\'a}d Besz{\'e}des and M. Tarkiainen and Tibor Gyim{\'o}thy}
}
@booklet {FMBe00,
	title = {Columbus 2.0 - Tool for Reverse Engineering Large Object Oriented Software Systems},
	year = {2000},
	publisher = {Research Group on Artificial Intelligence, Hungarian Academy of Sciences and University of Szeged},
	author = {Rudolf Ferenc and F. Magyar and {\'A}rp{\'a}d Besz{\'e}des and G. M{\'a}rton and M. Tarkiainen and Tibor Gyim{\'o}thy}
}
@article {springerlink:10.1023/A:1026554814106,
	title = {A Comparative Study of Several Feature Transformation and Learning Methods for Phoneme Classification},
	journal = {International Journal of Speech Technology},
	volume = {3},
	year = {2000},
	note = {10.1023/A:1026554814106},
	pages = {263-276},
	publisher = {Springer Netherlands},
	issn = {1381-2416},
	url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1026554814106},
	author = {A. Kocsor and L. T{\'o}th and A. Kuba and K. Kov{\'a}cs and M. Jelasity and Tibor Gyim{\'o}thy and J. Csirik}
}
@conference {LKGy99,
	title = {A Compiler-Generator Based on the {Pred-LL(k)} Parsing Method},
	booktitle = {Proceedings of Program Analsysis and verification, Fenno-Ugric Symposium},
	year = {1999},
	month = {aug},
	pages = {41-50},
	author = {T. Lakner and L. Kozma and Tibor Gyim{\'o}thy}
}
@conference {KokAleGyi96-PAP96,
	title = {Classifying {ECG} Waveforms in {P}rolog},
	year = {1996},
	pages = {173-199},
	publisher = {Practical Application Company Limited},
	organization = {Practical Application Company Limited},
	author = {G. K{\'o}kai and Z. Alexin and Tibor Gyim{\'o}thy},
	editor = {Reintjes, P.}
}
@article {Alexin90a,
	title = {{CONSTRUCTOR}: {A} Natural Language Interface Based on Attribute	Grammars},
	journal = {Acta Cybernetica},
	volume = {9},
	number = {3},
	year = {1990},
	pages = {247-255},
	keywords = {applic.NL},
	author = {Z. Alexin and J. Dombi and K. F{\'a}bricz and Tibor Gyim{\'o}thy and T. Horv{\'a}th}
}
@conference {ADF89,
	title = {{CONSTRUCTOR}: A natural language interface based on attribute grammars},
	booktitle = {First Finnish-Hungarian Workshop on Programming Languages and Software Tools},
	year = {1989},
	month = {aug},
	pages = {135-145},
	author = {Z. Alexin and J. Dombi and K. F{\'a}bricz and Tibor Gyim{\'o}thy and T. Horv{\'a}th}
}
