To me the analysis of SWE-Bench is a solid contribution and informative. My guess is that to meet conference's submission bar they had to come up with their own bench (SWE-Bench+), which wasn't thorough enough and the paper got rejected mainly because of that.
Acceptance or rejection at big ML Conferences doesn't seem to carry much signal either way anymore. Completely saturated by grift and poor quality so each paper should be evaluated independent of their Conference status imo.
Software engineer with 8 years of professional experience. Expert in distributed systems and formal verification, looking for positions to build highly scalable systems.
I'm a software engineer with 5 years of industry experience, 3 years as a technical lead/manager. I'm experienced in building distributed systems, and also published papers in top systems conferences. Preferably looking for positions to work on distributed systems/high scalability problems.
To me the analysis of SWE-Bench is a solid contribution and informative. My guess is that to meet conference's submission bar they had to come up with their own bench (SWE-Bench+), which wasn't thorough enough and the paper got rejected mainly because of that.