Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Shulin Xin
dblp:394/5491
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 since 2021
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
1 paper |
Software maintenance and evolution · 44% Empirical software engineering · 44% Program synthesis and code generation · 13% |
Topics — the 2 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Software maintenance and evolution › issue management
issue resolution |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Multi-SWE-bench: A Multilingual Benchmark for Issue Resolving · NeurIPS 2025 |
Program synthesis and code generation
code generation with language models |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Multi-SWE-bench: A Multilingual Benchmark for Issue Resolving · NeurIPS 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
large language model · 0.9agent-based framework · 0.9
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Multi-SWE-bench: A Multilingual Benchmark for Issue ResolvingabstractThe task of issue resolving aims to modify a codebase to generate a patch that addresses a given issue. However, most existing benchmarks focus almost exclusively on Python, making them insufficient for evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) across different programming languages. To bridge this gap, we introduce a multilingual issue-resolving benchmark, called Multi-SWE-bench, covering 8 languages of Python, Java, TypeScript, JavaScript, Go, Rust, C, and C++. In particular, this benchmark includes a total of 2,132 high-quality instances, carefully curated by 68 expert annotators, ensuring a reliable and accurate evaluation of LLMs on the issue-resolving task. Based on human-annotated results, the issues are further classified into three difficulty levels. We evaluate a series of state-of-the-art models on Multi-SWE-bench, utilizing both procedural and agent-based frameworks for issue resolving. Our experiments reveal three key findings: (1) Limited generalization across languages: While existing LLMs perform well on Python issues, their ability to generalize across other languages remains limited; (2) Performance aligned with human-annotated difficulty: LLM-based agents' performance closely aligns with human-assigned difficulty, with resolution rates decreasing as issue complexity rises; and (3) Performance drop on cross-file issues: The performance of current methods significantly deteriorates when handling cross-file issues. These findings highlight the limitations of current LLMs and underscore the need for more robust models capable of handling a broader range of programming languages and complex issue scenarios. Daoguang Zan, Zhirong Huang, Hanwu Chen, Shulin Xin, Linhao Zhang, Aoyan Li, Xiaojian Zhong, Yongsheng Xiao, Liangqiang Chen, Yuyu Zhang, Rui Long |
NeurIPS | 5 |