=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3612/QuASoQ_2023_Report
|storemode=property
|title=Report on the the 11th International Workshop on Quantitative Approaches to Software Quality
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3612/QuASoQ_2023_Report.pdf
|volume=Vol-3612
|authors=Horst Lichter,Thanwadee Sunetnanta,Toni Anwar
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/apsec/LichterSA23
}}
==Report on the the 11th International Workshop on Quantitative Approaches to Software Quality==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3612/QuASoQ_2023_Report.pdf
Report on the 11th International Workshop on Quantitative
Approaches to Software Quality (QuASoQ 2023)
Horst Lichtera , Thanwadee Sunetnantab and Toni Anwarc
a
Research Group Software Construction, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
b
Computer Science Academic Group, Faculty of Information And Communication Technology, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
c
Faculty of Science and Information Technology, Chair Computer & Information Systems, Universiti Teknologi Petronas: Bandar Seri Iskandar,
Perak, Malaysia
1. Introduction specification and quality assurance are crucial. Although
there are many approaches to dealing with quantitative
After a successful 10th QuASoQ workshop, we have again quality aspects, choosing a suitable set of techniques that
included the following topics of interest: best fit the specific project and organizational constraints
is still challenging.
• New approaches to measurement, evaluation, Even though approaches, methods, and techniques
comparison, and improvement of software qual- have been known for quite some time, little effort has
ity been spent exchanging real-world problems with quan-
• Application of metrics and quantitative ap- titative approaches. For example, only limited research
proaches in agile projects has been devoted to empirically evaluating the risks, ef-
• Case studies and industrial experience reports on ficiency, or limitations of different testing techniques in
the successful or failed application of quantitative industrial settings.
approaches to software quality Hence, one main goal of the workshop was to exchange
• Tools, infrastructure, and environments support- experience, present new promising approaches, and to
ing quantitative approaches discuss how to set up, organize, and maintain quantitative
• Empirical studies, evaluation, and comparison of approaches to software quality.
measurement techniques and models
• Quantitative approaches to test process improve-
ment, test strategies, or testability
2. Workshop History
• Empirical evaluations or comparisons of testing The QuASoQ workshop series has been started in 2013.
techniques in industrial settings Since then, the workshop has always been organized as a
• Mining software repositories collocated event of the Asia-Pacific Software Engineering
Conference (APSEC).
Overall, the workshop aimed to gather researchers and These are the past workshop editions:
practitioners together to discuss experiences in apply-
ing state-of-the-art approaches to measure, assess, and • 10th QuASoQ 2022
evaluate the quality of both software systems and soft- virtual (Japan) | CEUR Vol-3330
ware development processes in general and software test • 9th QuASoQ 2021
processes in particular. virtual (Taiwan) | CEUR Vol-3062
As software development organizations are constantly • 8th QuASoQ 2020
forced to develop software in the ”right” quality, quality virtual (Singapore) | CEUR Vol-2767
• 7th QuASoQ 2019
QuASoQ 2023: 11th International Workshop on Quantitative Putrayaya, Malaysia | CEUR Vol-2511
Approaches to Software Quality, December 04, 2023, Seoul, South • 6th QuASoQ 2018
Korea Nara, Japan | CEUR Vol-2273
Envelope-Open lichter@swc.rwth-aachen.de (H. Lichter);
thanwadee.sun@mahidol.ac.th (T. Sunetnanta);
• 5th QuASoQ 2017
toni.anwar@utp.edu.my (T. Anwar) Nanjing, China | CEUR Vol-2017
GLOBE https://www.swc.rwth-aachen.de (H. Lichter); • 4th QuASoQ 2016
https://www.ict.mahidol.ac.th (T. Sunetnanta); Hamilton, New Zealand | CEUR Vol-1771
https://www.utp.edu.my (T. Anwar) • 3rd QuASoQ 2015
Orcid 0000-0002-3440-1238 (H. Lichter); 0000-0002-1436-0352
(T. Sunetnanta); 0000-0002-0390-8749 (T. Anwar) New Delhi, India |CEUR Vol-1519
© 2023 Copyright for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative
Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
• 2nd QuASoQ 2014
CEUR
Workshop
Proceedings CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org)
http://ceur-ws.org
ISSN 1613-0073
Jeju, Korea | IEEE Xplore
CEUR
ceur-ws.org
Workshop ISSN 1613-0073
Proceedings
42
The presentations were divided into two sessions with
a coffee break in between. Each session was accompanied
by a moderator who tried to ensure the schedule was kept
to.
4. Workshop Contributions
The following five papers were submitted and accepted by
the program committee for presentation and publication
(the speaker is set in bold), covering very different topics.
• Sanghoon Rho, Philipp Martens, Seungcheol
Shin, Yeoneo Kim, Hoon Heo and Seunghyun Oh
Coyote C++: An Industrial-Strength Fully Auto-
mated Unit Testing Tool
• Kun Cheng and Shingo Takada
Figure 1: Origin of QuASoQ authors Software defect prediction based on JavaBERT and
CNN-BiLSTM
• Natsuda Kasisopha, Songsakdi Rongviriya-
• 1st QuASoQ 2013 panich and Panita Meananeatra
Bangkok, Thailand | IEEE Xplore Proposals for Improving the Assessment of Medical
Device Software in Thailand
Since the first edition, 72 papers have been presented; • Rabaya Sultana Mim, Toukir Ahammed and
the average acceptance rate is 77 %. The chart shown Kazi Sakib
in figure 1 depicts where the authors of accepted papers Identifying Vulnerable Functions from Source Code
come from. using Vulnerability Reports
• Danyang Wang, Jiaqi Yin, Sini Chen and Huib-
iao Zhu
3. Workshop Format Formalization and Verification of Go-based New
After the workshop had to take place virtually in the last Simple Queue System
three years due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we were
delighted to be able to hold the workshop again this year
in the context of the APSEC in Seoul. However, as some
5. Summary of the Presentations
authors couldn’t get a visa in their home country in time, and Discussions
two presentations had to be held on Zoom.
Based on our former experience, we wanted the work- About 12 researchers attended the workshop and partici-
shop to be highly interactive. To have an exciting and pated in the discussions. The participants received the
interactive event sharing lots of experience, we orga- author-discussant model well; it led to intensive discus-
nized the workshop presentations applying the author- sions. Hereby, other participants, apart from the discus-
discussant model. sant, also joined the resulting discussions.
According to this workshop model, papers are pre- The presentations and subsequent discussions showed
sented by one of the authors. After the presentation, a that we still need new approaches to code-related quality
discussant starts the discussion based on pre-formulated assessment. This was clearly demonstrated by the tool
questions. Therefore, the discussant had to prepare a set for automated unit testing of C++ programs presented
of questions and know the presented paper’s details. The by Philipp Martens. Similar tools do not currently exist,
general structure of each talk was as follows: so a comparison with such tools is impossible.
Determining buggy code using defect prediction meth-
• The paper’s author presented the paper (20 min- ods can help developers and testers detecting defects
utes). more specifically. Kun Cheng’s contribution introduced
• After that, the paper’s discussant opened the dis- this topic. The same applies to the topic presented by
cussion using their questions. Rabaya Sultana Mim. The presented approach allows
• Finally, we moderated the discussion among the developers to quickly identify vulnerable code in existing
audience (5 minutes). applications.
43
Natsuda Kasisopha’s talk clearly showed that we need • Ana Nicolaescu
new approaches for particular domains, in this case, med- Daimler AG, Germany
ical devices, so that companies can develop such products • Maria Spichkova
in accordance with the applicable regulations and stan- RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia
dards. • Minxue Pan
In his contribution, Danyang Wang shows the use of Nanjing University, China
formal procedures, CSP and model checking, to evaluate • Lov Kumar
relevant properties of software. It became apparent that BITS-PILANI, Hyderabad, India
this is not easy and cannot be applied to every type of • Simon Hacks
software. Stockholm University, Sweden
In summary, during this workshop, the participants
proposed and discussed different approaches to assess
and evaluate relevant aspects of software and software
development processes.
It should not go unmentioned that the workshop had
to be held in a hybrid format as two speakers were unable
to travel to Seoul. We integrated them into the workshop
by means of a Zoom call.
6. Acknowledgments
Many people contributed to the success of this work-
shop. First, we want to give thanks to the authors and
presenters of the accepted papers. Furthermore, we want
to express our gratitude to the APSEC 2023 workshop
organizers; they did a perfect job and supported us in
running the workshop in a hybrid mode.
Finally, we are glad that these people served on the
program committee (most of them for many years) and
supported the workshop by soliciting papers and writing
peer reviews:
• Thanwadee Sunetnanta
Mahidol University, Thailand
• Toni Anwar
UTP Seri Iskander, Malaysia
• Hironori Washizaki
Waseda University, Japan
• Nasir Mehmood Minhas
Mälardalen University, Sweden
• Jin-Hua Li
Qingdao University, China
• Hongyu Zhang
Chongqing University, China
• Taratip Suwannasart
Chulalongkorn University, Thailand
• Wan Mohd Nasir Wan-Kadir
UTM Johor Bahru, Malaysia
• Sansiri Tanachutiwat
Thai German Graduate School of Engineering,
TGGS, Thailand
• Apinporn Methawachananont
NECTEC, Thailand
44