Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Konstantinos Vergopoulos
dblp:401/9215
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
1as 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 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 |
Software testing · 67% Empirical software engineering · 33% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Software testing › test infrastructure
benchmark construction |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Automated Benchmark Generation for Repository-Level Coding Tasks · ICML 2025 |
Empirical software engineering
benchmarking |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Automated Benchmark Generation for Repository-Level Coding Tasks · ICML 2025 |
Software testing
test generation |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Automated Benchmark Generation for Repository-Level Coding Tasks · ICML 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
test execution · 0.9automated dependency setup · 0.9
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Automated Benchmark Generation for Repository-Level Coding TasksabstractCode Agent development is an extremely active research area, where a reliable performance metric is critical for tracking progress and guiding new developments. This demand is underscored by the meteoric rise in popularity of SWE-Bench -- a benchmark that challenges code agents to generate patches addressing GitHub issues given the full repository as context. The correctness of generated patches is then evaluated by executing a human-written test suite extracted from the repository after the issue's resolution.
However, constructing benchmarks like SWE-Bench requires substantial manual effort to set up historically accurate execution environments for testing. Crucially, this severely limits the number of considered repositories, e.g., just 12 for SWE-Bench. Considering so few repositories, selected for their popularity runs the risk of leading to a distributional mismatch, i.e., the measured performance may not be representative of real-world scenarios running the riks of misguiding development efforts.
In this work, we address this challenge and introduce SetUpAgent, a fully automated system capable of historically accurate dependency setup, test execution, and result parsing. Using SetUpAgent, we generate two new datasets: (i) SWEE-Bench an extended version of SWE-Bench encompassing hundreds of repositories, and (ii) SWA-Bench a benchmark focusing on applications rather than libraries. Comparing these datasets to SWE-Bench with respect to their characteristics and code agent performance, we find significant distributional differences, including lower issue description quality and detail level, higher fix complexity, and most importantly up to 60% lower agent success rates. Konstantinos Vergopoulos, Mark Niklas Müller, Martin T. Vechev |
ICML | 1 |