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

Nidhish Shah

dblp:394/7202 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2024
—ORCID · none

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 first-author · 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
Empirical software engineering · 77% Debugging and program repair · 23%
Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Language models and text generation · 100%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
code generation
0.812024
StackEval: Benchmarking LLMs in Coding Assistance · NeurIPS 2024
Empirical software engineering
benchmarking
0.812024
StackEval: Benchmarking LLMs in Coding Assistance · NeurIPS 2024

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

human annotation · 1.5LLM-as-judge · 1.5
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2024 StackEval: Benchmarking LLMs in Coding Assistance
abstract
We present two comprehensive benchmarks to evaluate the performance of language models in coding assistance tasks, covering code writing, debugging, code review, and conceptual understanding. Our main contribution includes two curated datasets: StackEval, a large-scale benchmark derived from Stack Overflow questions, and StackUnseen, a dynamic benchmark featuring the most recent Stack Overflow content. These benchmarks offer novel insights into the capabilities and limitations of LLMs, particularly in handling new and emerging content. Additionally, we assess LLMs' proficiency as judges for coding tasks using a curated, human-annotated dataset, exploring their evaluation capabilities and potential biases, including whether they favor their own generated solutions. Our findings underscore the potential of these benchmarks to advance LLM development and application in coding assistance. To ensure reproducibility, we publicly share our datasets and evaluation code at https://github.com/ProsusAI/stack-eval.
Nidhish Shah, Zülküf Genç, Dogu Araci
NeurIPS1