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