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

Dekun Dai

dblp:405/2796 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2026
0009-0002-1452-8562ORCID · reported

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 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.

Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper
Information retrieval · 100%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Information retrieval › document retrieval › domain-specific retrieval
code search
1.012026
Are Decoder-Only Large Language Models the Silver Bullet for Code Search? · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2026
Information retrieval › retrieval models › neural retrieval
dense retrieval
1.012026
Are Decoder-Only Large Language Models the Silver Bullet for Code Search? · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2026
Information retrieval › document retrieval › domain-specific retrieval › code search
neural code search
1.012026
Are Decoder-Only Large Language Models the Silver Bullet for Code Search? · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2026
Information retrieval
retrieval models
1.012026
Are Decoder-Only Large Language Models the Silver Bullet for Code Search? · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2026

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

zero-shot evaluation · 1.0large language model fine-tuning · 1.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2026 Are Decoder-Only Large Language Models the Silver Bullet for Code Search?
abstract
Code search is essential for code reuse, allowing developers to efficiently locate relevant code snippets. The advent of powerful decoder-only Large Language Models (LLMs) has revolutionized many code intelligence tasks. However, their effectiveness for the retrieval-based task of code search, particularly compared to established encoder-based models, remains underexplored. This paper addresses this gap by presenting a large-scale systematic evaluation of eleven decoder-only LLMs, analyzing their performance across zero-shot and fine-tuned settings. <p xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Our results show that fine-tuned decoder-only models, particularly CodeGemma, significantly outperform encoder-only models like UniXcoder, achieving a 40.4% higher Mean Average Precision (MAP) on the CoSQA<sup>+</sup> benchmark. Our analysis further reveals two crucial nuances for practitioners: first, the relationship between model size and performance is non-monotonic, with mid-sized models often outperforming larger variants; second, the composition of the training data is critical, as a multilingual dataset enhances generalization while a small amount of data from a specific language can act as noise and interfere with model effectiveness. These findings offer a comprehensive guide to selecting and optimizing modern LLMs for code search.
Mingwei Liu 0002, Guangsheng Ou, Anji Li 0001, Dekun Dai, Yanlin Wang 0001, Zibin Zheng
IEEE Trans. Software Eng.5