Researcher profile

Chao Ni

Chao Ni contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Defect Identification, Categorization, and Repair: Better Together

Just-In-Time defect prediction (JIT-DP) models can identify defect-inducing commits at check-in time. Even though previous studies have achieved a great progress, these studies still have the following limitations: 1) useful information (e.g., semantic information and structure information) are not fully used; 2) existing work can only predict a commit as buggy one or clean one without more information about what type of defect it is; 3) a commit may involve changes in many files, which cause difficulty in locating the defect; 4) prior studies treat defect identification and defect repair as separate tasks, none aims to handle both tasks simultaneously. In this paper, to handle aforementioned limitations, we propose a comprehensive defect prediction and repair framework named CompDefect, which can identify whether a changed function (a more fine-grained level) is defect-prone, categorize the type of defect, and repair such a defect automatically if it falls into several scenarios, e.g., defects with single statement fixes, or those that match a small set of defect templates. Generally, the first two tasks in CompDefect are treated as a multiclass classification task, while the last one is treated as a sequence generation task. The whole input of CompDefect consists of three parts (exampled with positive functions): the clean version of a function (i.e., the version before defect introduced), the buggy version of a function and the fixed version of a function. In multiclass classification task, CompDefect categorizes the type of defect via multiclass classification with the information in both the clean version and the buggy version. In code sequence generation task, CompDefect repairs the defect once identified or keeps it unchanged.

preprint2022arXiv

Fast and Compute-efficient Sampling-based Local Exploration Planning via Distribution Learning

Exploration is a fundamental problem in robotics. While sampling-based planners have shown high performance, they are oftentimes compute intensive and can exhibit high variance. To this end, we propose to directly learn the underlying distribution of informative views based on the spatial context in the robot's map. We further explore a variety of methods to also learn the information gain. We show in thorough experimental evaluation that our proposed system improves exploration performance by up to 28% over classical methods, and find that learning the gains in addition to the sampling distribution can provide favorable performance vs. compute trade-offs for compute-constrained systems. We demonstrate in simulation and on a low-cost mobile robot that our system generalizes well to varying environments.

preprint2019arXiv

Revisiting Heterogeneous Defect Prediction: How Far Are We?

Until now, researchers have proposed several novel heterogeneous defect prediction HDP methods with promising performance. To the best of our knowledge, whether HDP methods can perform significantly better than unsupervised methods has not yet been thoroughly investigated. In this article, we perform a replication study to have a holistic look in this issue. In particular, we compare state-of-the-art five HDP methods with five unsupervised methods. Final results surprisingly show that these HDP methods do not perform significantly better than some of unsupervised methods (especially the simple unsupervised methods proposed by Zhou et al.) in terms of two non-effort-aware performance measures and four effort-aware performance measures. Then, we perform diversity analysis on defective modules via McNemar's test and find the prediction diversity is more obvious when the comparison is performed between the HDP methods and the unsupervised methods than the comparisons only between the HDP methods or between the unsupervised methods. This shows the HDP methods and the unsupervised methods are complementary to each other in identifying defective models to some extent. Finally, we investigate the feasibility of five HDP methods by considering two satisfactory criteria recommended by previous CPDP studies and find the satisfactory ratio of these HDP methods is still pessimistic. The above empirical results implicate there is still a long way for heterogeneous defect prediction to go. More effective HDP methods need to be designed and the unsupervised methods should be considered as baselines.