Existing scholarly information extraction (SIE) datasets focus on scientific papers and overlook implementation-level details in code repositories. README files describe datasets, source code, and other implementation-level artifacts, however, their free-form Markdown offers little semantic structure, making automatic information extraction difficult. To address this gap, NERdME is introduced: 200 manually annotated README files with over 10,000 labeled spans and 10 entity types. Baseline results using large language models and fine-tuned transformers show clear differences between paperlevel and implementation-level entities, indicating the value of extending SIE benchmarks with entity types available in README files. A downstream entity-linking experiment was conducted to demonstrate that entities derived from READMEs can support artifact discovery and metadata integration.
Figures & tables
Dataset
Source
#ET
#Doc
#Mention
Manual
ILE
PLE
Span
SciERC ( Luan et al., 2018 )
Paper abstract
6
500
8,089
✓
✗
✓
✓
SciREX ( Jain et al., 2020 )
Full papers
4
438
156,931
✓
✗
✓
✓
SciDMT ( Pan et al., 2024 )
Full papers
3
48k
1,830,886
✗
✗
✓
✓
GSAP-NER ( Otto et al., 2023 )
Full papers
10
100
54,598
✓
✗
✓
✓
SoMeSci ( Schindler et al., 2021 )
Full papers
9
1367
7,237
✓
✓
✗
✓
Hidden Entity ( Gan et al., 2025 )
GitHub READMEs
4
811
1,439
✓
✓
✗
✗
Table 1. Comparison of NERdME with existing SIE datasets.
Figure 1. Illustration of an annotated README file in the dataset. Note that unlabeled sentences are NOT negative samples.
Figure 2. Span statistics in NERdME. Bars show the proportion of spans across train, validation, and test splits for each entity type; numbers in parentheses indicate total spans per type.
Group
UniqueRatio
FormLength
PPL
EditDist
Paper
0.56
10.00
1,326
0.92
Implementation
0.29
6.00
2,509
0.94
Table 2. Linguistic comparison of entity groups.
Approach
CONFERENCE
DATASET
EVALMETRIC
LICENSE
ONTOLOGY
PROGLANG
PROJECT
PUBLICATION
SOFTWARE
WORKSHOP
F1-P.
Zero-shot LLM
77.38
50.98
37.07
87.34
45.98
34.41
56.23
70.42
29.96
20.68
Fine-tuned
82.29
69.94
60.18
86.62
79.43
82.72
47.36
90.16
77.25
13.27
F1-E.
Zero-shot LLM
47.63
45.30
33.94
86.15
18.52
31.69
53.72
64.95
23.12
20.68
Fine-tuned
58.38
63.94
44.78
78.38
73.13
79.96
34.22
82.12
72.46
0.00
Table 3. Best results of various language models for individual entity type on NERdME under partial and exact match F1 score. F1-P. and F1-E. represent partial and exact match F1 score, respectively. The complete scores for all models and entity types are available in GitHub repository.
Method
P
R
F1
Hits@1
Hits@3
MRR
Fuzzy
26.84
13.17
17.67
15.24
15.29
15.27
Semantic
65.18
38.68
47.75
37.68
37.72
37.69
Table 4. Entity linking performance on NERdME entities under different linking methods. Best results are marked in bold.
Code search in large-scale ecosystems is often hindered by the lexical gap between user queries and implementation details, alongside the trade-off between the low latency of traditional Information Retrieval (IR) and the precision of Deep Learning (DL). We present MediaWiki Code2Code Search, a neural retrieval system for semantic code-to-code discovery. By indexing 1.29 million structural entities (functions, types, and templates) across 2,500+ MediaWiki repositories, our system enables retrieval based on computational intent rather than surface tokens. We employ a split-build architecture, decoupling GPU-intensive offline indexing from a CPU-only serving layer; our FAISS IVF-PQ index occupies 168.6 MB: a 96.6% reduction compared to a flat float32 baseline, and achieves a median query latency of 1.85 seconds on commodity hardware, satisfying the 6 GiB RAM constraint of Wikimedia Toolforge. Our evaluation across a 27-query benchmark demonstrates superior performance over the BM25 baseline, achieving a P@10 of 0.87 compared to 0.64 (0.52 versus 0.34 for strict matching). Gains are most pronounced in name-obfuscated tasks where lexical methods fail. The system is available at https://code2codesearch.toolforge.org under the Apache 2.0 licence and provides an open RESTful API.
Francesco Tosoni
Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies, p.zza Martiri della Libertà 33, 56127 Pisa PI, Italy
Large language models have shown strong performance on software engineering (SE) tasks, yet understanding large industrial repositories remains challenging. Existing methods often retrieve only local fragments and fail to recover the broader task-relevant context needed for complex repository-level tasks. We present DeepDiscovery, a task-level repository-understanding method for large industrial codebases. DeepDiscovery uses a two-stage Location--Inference framework to localize high-confidence task anchors and recover broader task-relevant context over multi-relational repository structure under budget constraints. Across controlled method-level evaluation, organization-internal industrial repository-understanding scenarios, and end-to-end evaluation on SWE-bench Verified, DeepDiscovery consistently improves task-relevant file recovery and downstream SE performance. On 27 medium-scale tasks, DeepDiscovery achieves the best file recovery quality among five representative baselines without offline preprocessing. On organization-internal industrial tasks from a production-scale integrated codebase ecosystem, including 27 medium-scale tasks and 40 large-scale tasks, DeepDiscovery improves Full Recall Rate across multiple AI coding systems, with absolute gains ranging from 1.6 to 9.2 percentage points on large subprojects and from 2.5 to 7.4 percentage points on medium-scale subprojects. In a controlled end-to-end evaluation on SWE-bench Verified, a system equipped with DeepDiscovery achieves a 78.6% Solve Rate, outperforming the corresponding baseline by 8.2 percentage points. These results suggest that stronger task-level repository understanding can improve coding-agent performance on complex SE tasks.
Jiawei He, Weisong Sun, Mengyu Shi +4
AMAP, Alibaba Group · Nanyang Technological University · Nanjing University +1
Natural language code retrieval is a rapidly evolving task in computer science. However, the 1C:Enterprise ecosystem combines Russian syntax with highly domain-specific terminology, for which open datasets and specialized models have been virtually non-existent. We present a comprehensive pipeline for 1C code retrieval: an open benchmark of 3,413 real-world, PII-scrubbed query-code pairs, a reproducible evaluation harness, and a specialized bi-encoder. To overcome scarce labeled data, we fine-tune on 784,057 synthetic triplets generated by google/gemma-4-26B-A4B-it from public code repositories, using Matryoshka Representation Learning (MRL) and a privacy-aware tokenizer. Because the benchmark subsets differ in size, we report balanced-subset macro, query-weighted micro, and forum-only results. Our model reaches 0.5992 balanced macro nDCG@10, 0.5044 micro, and 0.4617 on forum, versus 0.4932 macro for the baseline architecture and 0.5404 for google/embeddinggemma-300m. Removing every benchmark example flagged by the conservative exact/13-gram overlap audit leaves 0.6011 balanced macro (0.5010 micro), indicating that detected train-benchmark overlap does not explain the headline result. MRL truncation to 256 dimensions preserves 99.9% of retrieval quality while reducing dense-index storage and exact similarity arithmetic by a factor of three.
Konstantin Chesnokov, Chingiz Mingazov
Independent Researcher, Moscow, Russia · Independent Researcher, Kazan, Russia