EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Qiang Zhou 0009
dblp:43/3182-9
· DBLP profile ↗
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
2since 2021 · last 2024
0009-0002-6770-0880ORCID · verified
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 since 2021Software 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.
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
2 papers |
Empirical software engineering · 38% Debugging and program repair · 19% Program synthesis and code generation · 19% | |
| Artificial intelligence
1 paper |
Language models and text generation · 100% |
Topics — the 7 heaviest of 7, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Debugging and program repair
automated program repair |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | LeDex: Training LLMs to Better Self-Debug and Explain Code · NeurIPS 2024 |
Program synthesis and code generation
code generation with language models |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | LeDex: Training LLMs to Better Self-Debug and Explain Code · NeurIPS 2024 |
Software maintenance and evolution › code review
code review analysis |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Understanding Developer-Analyzer Interactions in Code Reviews · ASE 2024 |
Empirical software engineering
developer studies |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Understanding Developer-Analyzer Interactions in Code Reviews · ASE 2024 |
Empirical software engineering
mining software repositories |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Understanding Developer-Analyzer Interactions in Code Reviews · ASE 2024 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
large language model |
0.2 | 1 | 2024 | LeDex: Training LLMs to Better Self-Debug and Explain Code · NeurIPS 2024 |
Program analysis
static analysis |
0.2 | 1 | 2024 | Understanding Developer-Analyzer Interactions in Code Reviews · ASE 2024 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
supervised fine-tuning · 1.5reinforcement learning · 1.5execution verification · 1.5sentiment analysis · 0.8intent analysis · 0.8
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | Understanding Developer-Analyzer Interactions in Code ReviewsabstractStatic code analyzers are now a common part of the codereview process. These automated tools integrate into the code review process by commenting on code changes and suggesting improvements, in the same way as human reviewers. The comments made by static analyzers often trigger a conversation between developers to align on if and how the issue should be fixed. Because developers rarely give feedback directly to the tool, understanding the sentiment and intent in the conversation triggered by the tool comments can be used to measure the usefulness of the static analyzer. Martin Schäf, Berk Çirisci, Linghui Luo, Muhammad Numair Mansur, Omer Tripp, Daniel Sanchez, Qiang Zhou 0009, Muhammad Bilal Zafar |
ASE | 7 |
| 2024 | LeDex: Training LLMs to Better Self-Debug and Explain CodeabstractIn the domain of code generation, self-debugging is crucial. It allows LLMs to refine their generated code based on execution feedback. This is particularly important because generating correct solutions in one attempt proves challenging for complex tasks. Prior works on self-debugging mostly focus on prompting methods by providing LLMs with few-shot examples, which work poorly on small open-sourced LLMs. In this work, we propose LeDex, a training framework that significantly improves the self-debugging capability of LLMs. Intuitively, we observe that a chain of explanations on the wrong code followed by code refinement helps LLMs better analyze the wrong code and do refinement. We thus propose an automated pipeline to collect a high-quality dataset for code explanation and refinement by generating a number of explanations and refinement trajectories from the LLM itself or a larger teacher model and filtering via execution verification. We perform supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and further reinforcement learning (RL) on both success and failure trajectories with a novel reward design considering code explanation and refinement quality. SFT improves the pass@1 by up to 15.92\% and pass@10 by 9.30\% over four benchmarks. RL training brings additional up to 3.54\% improvement on pass@1 and 2.55\% improvement on pass@10. The trained LLMs show iterative refinement ability and can keep refining code continuously. Lastly, our human evaluation shows that the LLMs trained with our framework generate more useful code explanations and help developers better understand bugs in source code. Nan Jiang 0012, Xiaopeng Li 0002, Shiqi Wang 0002, Qiang Zhou 0009, Soneya Binta Hossain, Baishakhi Ray, Xiaofei Ma 0001, Anoop Deoras |
NeurIPS | 4 |