Executive Compensation and CEO Equity Incentives in China’s Listed Firms (CRI 2009-006)

This study investigates the economic, ownership and governance determinants of executive compensation and CEO equity incentives in China’s listed firms. Consistent with the agency theory, we find that executive compensation is positively correlated with firm size, performance, and growth opportunities. CEO incentives are negatively associated with firm size, positively linked with firm performance and growth opportunity. Firm risk has a negative effect on pay and incentives. Compensation and CEO incentives are significantly greater in privately-controlled firms compared to state-run firms and are lower in firms with concentrated ownership structures. Boardroom governance is important: firms with compensation committees or a greater fraction of independent directors on the board have higher executive pay and greater CEO equity incentives

Executive Compensation and Corporate Governance in China

We investigate executive compensation and corporate governance in China’s publicly traded firms. We also compare executive pay in China to the USA. Consistent with agency theory, we find that executive compensation is positively correlated to firm performance. The study shows that executive pay and CEO incentives are lower in State controlled firms and firms with concentrated ownership structures. Boardroom governance is important. We find that firms with more independent directors on the board have a higher pay-for-performance link. Non-State (private) controlled firms and firms with more independent directors on the board are more likely to replace the CEO for poor performance. Finally, we document that US executive pay (salary and bonus) is about seventeen times higher than in China. Significant differences in US-China pay persist even after controlling for economic and governance factors

A Comprehensive Study of Automatic Program Repair on the QuixBugs Benchmark

Automatic program repair papers tend to repeatedly use the same benchmarks. This poses a threat to the external validity of the findings of the program repair research community. In this paper, we perform an empirical study of automatic repair on a benchmark of bugs called QuixBugs, which has been little studied. In this paper, 1) We report on the characteristics of QuixBugs; 2) We study the effectiveness of 10 program repair tools on it; 3) We apply three patch correctness assessment techniques to comprehensively study the presence of overfitting patches in QuixBugs. Our key results are: 1) 16/40 buggy programs in QuixBugs can be repaired with at least a test suite adequate patch; 2) A total of 338 plausible patches are generated on the QuixBugs by the considered tools, and 53.3% of them are overfitting patches according to our manual assessment; 3) The three automated patch correctness assessment techniques, RGT_Evosuite, RGT_InputSampling and GT_Invariants, achieve an accuracy of 98.2%, 80.8% and 58.3% in overfitting detection, respectively. To our knowledge, this is the largest empirical study of automatic repair on QuixBugs, combining both quantitative and qualitative insights. All our empirical results are publicly available on GitHub in order to facilitate future research on automatic program repair

Developing the scales on evaluation beliefs of student teachers

The purpose of the study reported in this paper was to investigate the validity and the reliability of a newly developed questionnaire named ‘Teacher Evaluation Beliefs’ (TEB). The framework for developing items was provided by the two models. The first model focuses on Student-Centered and Teacher-Centered beliefs about evaluation while the other centers on five dimensions (what/ who/ when/ why/ how). The validity and reliability of the new instrument was investigated using both exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis study (n=446). Overall results indicate that the two-factor structure is more reasonable than the five-factor one. Further research needs additional items about the latent dimensions “what” ”who” ”when” ”why” “how” for each existing factor based on Student-centered and Teacher-centered approaches