Researcher profile

Shanping Li

Shanping Li contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
7works
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

7 published item(s)

preprint2026arXiv

FGIT: Fault-Guided Fine-Tuning for Code Generation

Modern instruction-tuned large language models (LLMs) have made remarkable progress in code generation. However, these LLMs fine-tuned with standard supervised fine-tuning (SFT) sometimes generate plausible-looking but functionally incorrect code variants. This issue likely stems from the limitation of standard SFT, which treats all tokens equally during optimization and fails to emphasize the error-sensitive segments-specific code differences between correct implementations and similar incorrect variants. To address this problem, we propose Fault-Guided Fine-Tuning (FGIT), a novel fine-tuning technique that enhances LLMs' code generation by (1) extracting multi-granularity (line/token-level) differences between correct and incorrect yet similar implementations to identify error-sensitive segments, and (2) dynamically prioritizing those segments during training via dynamic loss weighting. Through extensive experiments on seven LLMs across three widely-used benchmarks, our method achieves an average relative improvement of 6.9% on pass@1 with some enhanced 6.7B LLMs outperforming closed-source models, e.g., GPT-3.5-Turbo. Furthermore, our fine-tuning technique demonstrates strong generalization with performance improvements ranging from 3.8% to 19.1% across diverse instruction-tuned LLMs, and our ablation studies confirm the contributions of different granularities of differences and hyperparameters.

preprint2022arXiv

CodeMatcher: Searching Code Based on Sequential Semantics of Important Query Words

To accelerate software development, developers frequently search and reuse existing code snippets from a large-scale codebase, e.g., GitHub. Over the years, researchers proposed many information retrieval based models for code search, but they fail to connect the semantic gap between query and code. An early successful deep learning based model DeepCS solved this issue by learning the relationship between pairs of code methods and corresponding natural language descriptions. Two major advantages of DeepCS are the capability of understanding irrelevant/noisy keywords and capturing sequential relationships between words in query and code. In this paper, we proposed an IR-based model CodeMatcher that inherits the advantages of DeepCS, while it can leverage the indexing technique in the IR-based model to accelerate the search response time substantially. CodeMatcher first collects metadata for query words to identify irrelevant/noisy ones, then iteratively performs fuzzy search with important query words on the codebase that is indexed by the Elasticsearch tool, and finally reranks a set of returned candidate code according to how the tokens in the candidate code snippet sequentially matched the important words in a query. We verified its effectiveness on a large-scale codebase with ~41k repositories. Experimental results showed that CodeMatcher achieves an MRR of 0.60, outperforming DeepCS, CodeHow, and UNIF by 82%, 62%, and 46% respectively. Our proposed model is over 1.2k times faster than DeepCS. Moreover, CodeMatcher outperforms GitHub and Google search by 46% and 33% respectively in terms of MRR. We also observed that: fusing the advantages of IR-based and DL-based models is promising; improving the quality of method naming helps code search, since method name plays an important role in connecting query and code.

preprint2021arXiv

A Differential Testing Approach for Evaluating Abstract Syntax Tree Mapping Algorithms

Abstract syntax tree (AST) mapping algorithms are widely used to analyze changes in source code. Despite the foundational role of AST mapping algorithms, little effort has been made to evaluate the accuracy of AST mapping algorithms, i.e., the extent to which an algorihtm captures the evolution of code. We observe that a program element often has only one best-mapped program element. Based on this observation, we propose a hierarchical approach to automatically compare the similarity of mapped statements and tokens by different algorithms. By performing the comparison, we determine if each of the compared algorithms generates inaccurate mappings for a statement or its tokens. We invite 12 external experts to determine if three commonly used AST mapping algorithms generate accurate mappings for a statement and its tokens for 200 statements. Based on the experts' feedback,we observe that our approach achieves a precision of 0.98--1.00 and a recall of 0.65--0.75. Furthermore, we conduct a large-scale study with a dataset of ten Java projects, containing a total of 263,165 file revisions. Our approach determines that GumTree, MTDiff and IJM generate inaccurate mappings for 20%--29%, 25%--36% and 21%--30% of the file revisions, respectively. Our experimental results show that state-of-art AST mapping agorithms still need improvements.

preprint2021arXiv

An Exploratory Study on the Introduction and Removal of Different Types of Technical Debt

To complete tasks faster, developers often have to sacrifice the quality of the software. Such compromised practice results in the increasing burden to developers in future development. The metaphor, technical debt, describes such practice. Prior research has illustrated the negative impact of technical debt, and many researchers investigated how developers deal with a certain type of technical debt. However, few studies focused on the removal of different types of technical debt in practice. To fill this gap, we use the introduction and removal of different types of self-admitted technical debt (i.e., SATD) in 7 deep learning frameworks as an example. This is because deep learning frameworks are some of the most important software systems today due to their prevalent use in life-impacting deep learning applications. Moreover, the field of the development of different deep learning frameworks is the same, which enables us to find common behaviors on the removal of different types of technical debt across projects. By mining the file history of these frameworks, we find that design debt is introduced the most along the development process. As for the removal of technical debt, we find that requirement debt is removed the most, and design debt is removed the fastest. Most of test debt, design debt, and requirement debt are removed by the developers who introduced them. Based on the introduction and removal of different types of technical debt, we discuss the evolution of the frequencies of different types of technical debt to depict the unresolved sub-optimal trade-offs or decisions that are confronted by developers along the development process. We also discuss the removal patterns of different types of technical debt, highlight future research directions, and provide recommendations for practitioners.

preprint2021arXiv

An Exploratory Study on the Repeatedly Shared External Links on Stack Overflow

On Stack Overflow, users reuse 11,926,354 external links to share the resources hosted outside the Stack Overflow website. The external links connect to the existing programming-related knowledge and extend the crowdsourced knowledge on Stack Overflow. Some of the external links, so-called as repeated external links, can be shared for multiple times. We observe that 82.5% of the link sharing activities (i.e., sharing links in any question, answer, or comment) on Stack Overflow share external resources, and 57.0% of the occurrences of the external links are sharing the repeated external links. However, it is still unclear what types of external resources are repeatedly shared. To help users manage their knowledge, we wish to investigate the characteristics of the repeated external links in knowledge sharing on Stack Overflow. In this paper, we analyze the repeated external links on Stack Overflow. We observe that external links that point to the text resources (hosted in documentation websites, tutorial websites, etc.) are repeatedly shared the most. We observe that: 1) different users repeatedly share the same knowledge in the form of repeated external links, thus increasing the maintenance effort of knowledge (e.g., update invalid links in multiple posts), 2) the same users can repeatedly share the external links for the purpose of promotion, and 3) external links can point to webpages with an overload of information that is difficult for users to retrieve relevant information. Our findings provide insights to Stack Overflow moderators and researchers. For example, we encourage Stack Overflow to centrally manage the commonly occurring knowledge in the form of repeated external links in order to better maintain the crowdsourced knowledge on Stack Overflow.

preprint2020arXiv

Broken External Links on Stack Overflow

Stack Overflow hosts valuable programming-related knowledge with 11,926,354 links that reference to the third-party websites. The links that reference to the resources hosted outside the Stack Overflow websites extend the Stack Overflow knowledge base substantially. However, with the rapid development of programming-related knowledge, many resources hosted on the Internet are not available anymore. Based on our analysis of the Stack Overflow data that was released on Jun. 2, 2019, 14.2% of the links on Stack Overflow are broken links. The broken links on Stack Overflow can obstruct viewers from obtaining desired programming-related knowledge, and potentially damage the reputation of the Stack Overflow as viewers might regard the posts with broken links as obsolete. In this paper, we characterize the broken links on Stack Overflow. 65% of the broken links in our sampled questions are used to show examples, e.g., code examples. 70% of the broken links in our sampled answers are used to provide supporting information, e.g., explaining a certain concept and describing a step to solve a problem. Only 1.67% of the posts with broken links are highlighted as such by viewers in the posts' comments. Only 5.8% of the posts with broken links removed the broken links. Viewers cannot fully rely on the vote scores to detect broken links, as broken links are common across posts with different vote scores. The websites that host resources that can be maintained by their users are referenced by broken links the most on Stack Overflow -- a prominent example of such websites is GitHub. The posts and comments related to the web technologies, i.e., JavaScript, HTML, CSS, and jQuery, are associated with more broken links. Based on our findings, we shed lights for future directions and provide recommendations for practitioners and researchers.

preprint2020arXiv

What Makes a Popular Academic AI Repository?

Many AI researchers are publishing code, data and other resources that accompany their papers in GitHub repositories. In this paper, we refer to these repositories as academic AI repositories. Our preliminary study shows that highly cited papers are more likely to have popular academic AI repositories (and vice versa). Hence, in this study, we perform an empirical study on academic AI repositories to highlight good software engineering practices of popular academic AI repositories for AI researchers. We collect 1,149 academic AI repositories, in which we label the top 20% repositories that have the most number of stars as popular, and we label the bottom 70% repositories as unpopular. The remaining 10% repositories are set as a gap between popular and unpopular academic AI repositories. We propose 21 features to characterize the software engineering practices of academic AI repositories. Our experimental results show that popular and unpopular academic AI repositories are statistically significantly different in 11 of the studied features---indicating that the two groups of repositories have significantly different software engineering practices. Furthermore, we find that the number of links to other GitHub repositories in the README file, the number of images in the README file and the inclusion of a license are the most important features for differentiating the two groups of academic AI repositories. Our dataset and code are made publicly available to share with the community.