BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Shaowei Wang

Shaowei Wang contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Software EngineeringMachine LearningArtificial IntelligenceComputation and Language

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 17 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
4works
0followers
4topics
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

4 published item(s)

preprint2026arXiv

SWE-Lego: Pushing the Limits of Supervised Fine-tuning for Software Issue Resolving

We present SWE-Lego, a supervised fine-tuning (SFT) recipe designed to achieve state-ofthe-art performance in software engineering (SWE) issue resolving. In contrast to prevalent methods that rely on complex training paradigms (e.g., mid-training, SFT, reinforcement learning, and their combinations), we explore how to push the limits of a lightweight SFT-only approach for SWE tasks. SWE-Lego comprises three core building blocks, with key findings summarized as follows: 1) the SWE-Lego dataset, a collection of 32k highquality task instances and 18k validated trajectories, combining real and synthetic data to complement each other in both quality and quantity; 2) a refined SFT procedure with error masking and a difficulty-based curriculum, which demonstrably improves action quality and overall performance. Empirical results show that with these two building bricks alone,the SFT can push SWE-Lego models to state-of-the-art performance among open-source models of comparable size on SWE-bench Verified: SWE-Lego-Qwen3-8B reaches 42.2%, and SWE-Lego-Qwen3-32B attains 52.6%. 3) We further evaluate and improve test-time scaling (TTS) built upon the SFT foundation. Based on a well-trained verifier, SWE-Lego models can be significantly boosted--for example, 42.2% to 49.6% and 52.6% to 58.8% under TTS@16 for the 8B and 32B models, respectively.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Impact of Discretization Noise of the Dependent variable on Machine Learning Classifiers in Software Engineering

Researchers usually discretize a continuous dependent variable into two target classes by introducing an artificial discretization threshold (e.g., median). However, such discretization may introduce noise (i.e., discretization noise) due to ambiguous class loyalty of data points that are close to the artificial threshold. Previous studies do not provide a clear directive on the impact of discretization noise on the classifiers and how to handle such noise. In this paper, we propose a framework to help researchers and practitioners systematically estimate the impact of discretization noise on classifiers in terms of its impact on various performance measures and the interpretation of classifiers. Through a case study of 7 software engineering datasets, we find that: 1) discretization noise affects the different performance measures of a classifier differently for different datasets; 2) Though the interpretation of the classifiers are impacted by the discretization noise on the whole, the top 3 most important features are not affected by the discretization noise. Therefore, we suggest that practitioners and researchers use our framework to understand the impact of discretization noise on the performance of their built classifiers and estimate the exact amount of discretization noise to be discarded from the dataset to avoid the negative impact of such noise.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

The impact of feature importance methods on the interpretation of defect classifiers

Classifier specific (CS) and classifier agnostic (CA) feature importance methods are widely used (often interchangeably) by prior studies to derive feature importance ranks from a defect classifier. However, different feature importance methods are likely to compute different feature importance ranks even for the same dataset and classifier. Hence such interchangeable use of feature importance methods can lead to conclusion instabilities unless there is a strong agreement among different methods. Therefore, in this paper, we evaluate the agreement between the feature importance ranks associated with the studied classifiers through a case study of 18 software projects and six commonly used classifiers. We find that: 1) The computed feature importance ranks by CA and CS methods do not always strongly agree with each other. 2) The computed feature importance ranks by the studied CA methods exhibit a strong agreement including the features reported at top-1 and top-3 ranks for a given dataset and classifier, while even the commonly used CS methods yield vastly different feature importance ranks. Such findings raise concerns about the stability of conclusions across replicated studies. We further observe that the commonly used defect datasets are rife with feature interactions and these feature interactions impact the computed feature importance ranks of the CS methods (not the CA methods). We demonstrate that removing these feature interactions, even with simple methods like CFS improves agreement between the computed feature importance ranks of CA and CS methods. In light of our findings, we provide guidelines for stakeholders and practitioners when performing model interpretation and directions for future research, e.g., future research is needed to investigate the impact of advanced feature interaction removal methods on computed feature importance ranks of different CS methods.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

The Impact of Using Regression Models to Build Defect Classifiers

It is common practice to discretize continuous defect counts into defective and non-defective classes and use them as a target variable when building defect classifiers (discretized classifiers). However, this discretization of continuous defect counts leads to information loss that might affect the performance and interpretation of defect classifiers. Another possible approach to build defect classifiers is through the use of regression models then discretizing the predicted defect counts into defective and non-defective classes (regression-based classifiers). In this paper, we compare the performance and interpretation of defect classifiers that are built using both approaches (i.e., discretized classifiers and regression-based classifiers) across six commonly used machine learning classifiers (i.e., linear/logistic regression, random forest, KNN, SVM, CART, and neural networks) and 17 datasets. We find that: i) Random forest based classifiers outperform other classifiers (best AUC) for both classifier building approaches; ii) In contrast to common practice, building a defect classifier using discretized defect counts (i.e., discretized classifiers) does not always lead to better performance. Hence we suggest that future defect classification studies should consider building regression-based classifiers (in particular when the defective ratio of the modeled dataset is low). Moreover, we suggest that both approaches for building defect classifiers should be explored, so the best-performing classifier can be used when determining the most influential features.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access