Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Changshu Liu

dblp:27/1902 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
11ranked-venue papers
3as first author
3since 2021 · last 2026
—ORCID · conflict

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 3Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 3 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021Systems, architecture and hardware · 2Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 2 · 2 first-author · 2 since 2021Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
3 papers
Empirical software engineering · 39% Debugging and program repair · 31% Program synthesis and code generation · 30%
Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Graph learning · 100%
Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
1 paper
Electronic design automation · 50% Parallel and multicore computing · 50%

Topics — the 9 heaviest of 10, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Empirical software engineering
large language model evaluation
1.012026
CodeMind: Evaluating Large Language Models for Implicit and Explicit Code Execution Reasoning · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2026
Machine learning › Graph learning
graph representation learning
0.512021
Self-supervised Consensus Representation Learning for Attributed Graph · ACM Multimedia 2021
Debugging and program repair › automated program repair
LLM-based program repair
0.312026
CodeMind: Evaluating Large Language Models for Implicit and Explicit Code Execution Reasoning · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2026
Debugging and program repair
automated program repair
0.212024
Automated Code Editing With Search-Generate-Modify · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2024
Debugging and program repair › automated program repair
patch generation
0.212024
Automated Code Editing With Search-Generate-Modify · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2024
Machine learning › Graph learning › graph neural network
node classification
0.112021
Self-supervised Consensus Representation Learning for Attributed Graph · ACM Multimedia 2021
Electronic design automation › hardware verification and test
diagnosis
0.112011
G2: A Graph Processing System for Diagnosing Distributed Systems · USENIX ATC 2011
Parallel and multicore computing
graph processing
0.112011
G2: A Graph Processing System for Diagnosing Distributed Systems · USENIX ATC 2011
Debugging and program repair › concurrent program debugging
distributed debugging
0.012011
G2: A Graph Processing System for Diagnosing Distributed Systems · USENIX ATC 2011

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

large language model evaluation · 1.0benchmark testing · 1.0retrieval · 0.8code search · 0.8code modification · 0.8code generation · 0.8k-nearest neighbour · 0.5graph convolutional network · 0.5contrastive learning · 0.5
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2026 CodeMind: Evaluating Large Language Models for Implicit and Explicit Code Execution Reasoning
abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) have been widely used to automate programming tasks. Their capabilities have been evaluated by assessing the quality of generated code through tests or proofs. The extent to which they can reason about code is a critical question revealing important insights about their true capabilities. This paper introduces CodeMind, a framework designed to gauge the code reasoning abilities of LLMs through the following explicit and implicit code reasoning tasks: Independent Execution Reasoning (IER), Specification Reasoning (SR) and Dynamic Semantics Reasoning (DSR). The first evaluates the abilities of LLMs to simulate the execution of given inputs to a code and predict the output (IER). The second assesses the abilities of LLMs to incorporate the simulation of test data in the specification into code generation (SR). Finally, CodeMind evaluates LLMs’ abilities to understand overall code semantics only given a specific input/output (DSR).Our extensive evaluation of 13 LLMs across four widely used benchmarks using CodeMind shows that LLMs, depending on their size and training strategy, can reason about some dynamic aspects of code. However, their performance drops for code with higher complexity, nested code constructs, non-primitive types, and intra-class dependencies. We show that these reasoning tasks evaluate LLMs differently, and a comprehensive evaluation of code reasoning requires them all. Finally, we show that the performance of LLMs in bug repair is not correlated with any of the code reasoning tasks, and except for advanced frontier models, other LLMs do not incorporate code reasoning when performing bug repair. Given that program repair requires execution reasoning (to determine where the behavior of buggy code differs from specified behavior to localize the bug) as well as specification and dynamic semantics reasoning (to re-write the code such that the patch keeps correct semantics but fixes semantic mismatch with the specification), this observation raises the question of to what extent we can trust these models for programming tasks that require code understanding and analysis.
Changshu Liu, Yang Chen 0059, Reyhaneh Jabbarvand Behrouz
IEEE Trans. Software Eng.1
2024 Automated Code Editing With Search-Generate-Modify
abstract
Code editing is essential in evolving software development. In literature, several automated code editing tools are proposed, which leverage Information Retrieval-based techniques and Machine Learning-based code generation and code editing models. Each technique comes with its own promises and perils, and for this reason, they are often used together to complement their strengths and compensate for their weaknesses. This paper proposes a hybrid approach to better synthesize code edits by leveraging the power of code search, generation, and modification.Our key observation is that a patch that is obtained by search & retrieval, even if incorrect, can provide helpful guidance to a code generation model. However, a retrieval-guided patch produced by a code generation model can still be a few tokens off from the intended patch. Such generated patches can be slightly modified to create the intended patches. We developed a novel tool to solve this challenge: SARGAM, which is designed to follow a real developer’s code editing behavior. Given an original code version, the developer maysearchfor the related patches,generateor write the code, and thenmodifythe generated code to adapt it to the right context. Our evaluation of SARGAM on edit generation shows superior performance w.r.t. the current state-of-the-art techniques. SARGAM also shows its effectiveness on automated program repair tasks.
Changshu Liu, Pelin Çetin, Yogesh Patodia, Baishakhi Ray, Saikat Chakraborty 0001, Yangruibo Ding
IEEE Trans. Software Eng.1
2021 Self-supervised Consensus Representation Learning for Attributed Graph
abstract
Attempting to fully exploit the rich information of topological structure and node features for attributed graph, we introduce self-supervised learning mechanism to graph representation learning and propose a novel Self-supervised Consensus Representation Learning (SCRL) framework. In contrast to most existing works that only explore one graph, our proposed SCRL method treats graph from two perspectives: topology graph and feature graph. We argue that their embeddings should share some common information, which could serve as a supervisory signal. Specifically, we construct the feature graph of node features via k-nearest neighbour algorithm. Then graph convolutional network (GCN) encoders extract features from two graphs respectively. Self-supervised loss is designed to maximize the agreement of the embeddings of the same node in the topology graph and the feature graph. Extensive experiments on real citation networks and social networks demonstrate the superiority of our proposed SCRL over the state-of-the-art methods on semi-supervised node classification task. Meanwhile, compared with its main competitors, SCRL is rather efficient.
Changshu Liu, Liangjian Wen, Zhao Kang 0001, Guangchun Luo, Ling Tian
ACM Multimedia1
2016 Enhancement for Dust-Sand Storm Images
Jian Wang 0087, Yanwei Pang, Changshu Liu
MMM (1)4
2016 A KD curvature based corner detector
Suting Chen, Changshu Liu
Neurocomputing4
2015 Interactive Head 3D Reconstruction Based Combine of Key Points and Voxel
Yanwei Pang, Changshu Liu
ICIG (2)5
2015 Bilateral filtering inspired locality preserving projections for hyperspectral images
Xinrong Li, Changshu Liu
Neurocomputing4
2014 Weighted Deformable Part Model for Robust Human Detection
Tianshuo Li, Yanwei Pang, Changshu Liu
ICIC (1)4
2013 Ranking Fisher discriminant analysis
Zhong Ji, Peiguang Jing, Tianshi Yu, Yuting Su 0001, Changshu Liu
Neurocomputing5
2011 G2: A Graph Processing System for Diagnosing Distributed Systems
Dong Zhou 0006, Haoxiang Lin, Mao Yang 0004, Fan Long, Chaoqiang Deng, Changshu Liu, Lidong Zhou
USENIX ATC7
2005 Performance Analysis and Prediction on VEGA Grid
Zhiwei Xu 0002, Yuzhong Sun, Zheng Shen, Changshu Liu
ISPA5