跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

YOUR RESEARCH, IN SIGHT

让下一篇重要论文,不再错过。

覆盖计算机全学科,以 AI 为快捷入口。关注方向、作者和关键词,把发现变成持续的研究积累。

部分采集异常
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+0新增论文
+0其中 AI 相关
+1已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-09 04:05 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-08 06:02各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-08 04:45 — 2026-11-09 04:45(北京时间) · 点击数字查看对应简报;AI 相关包含在新增论文内。

最近完成检查:2026-11-09 04:05最近发现新增版本:2026-11-08 06:02库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-06 02:59

每分钟刷新已保存的数据。空检查不代表采集异常;新收录可能包含历史论文。AI 导读按新增版本计数。

17,100 已收录论文14,661 AI 相关4,057 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

时间范围跟随排序:版本更新、本站收录或首次发表。最新收录可能包含历史论文。部分信源异常,查看状态 →

找到 3 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-09 04:03(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.05901

Retrieval Supersedes Scale: Efficient Log Level Prediction via Multiplex Socio-Technical Context

Youssef Esseddiq Ouatiti, Mohammed Sayagh, Bram Adams, Ahmed E. Hassan

原文摘要

Developers insert logging statements in source code to record its execution, and the resulting logs are essential for detecting and troubleshooting system anomalies. A key part of these statements is the log level (e.g., DEBUG, INFO, WARN, ERROR), which determines whether a message is recorded. Choosing it is a trade-off: levels set too low mask important information in production, while levels set too high create noisy logs and extra I/O and storage overhead. Recent work uses Large Language Models (LLMs) with In-Context Learning (ICL) to predict log levels, but typically augments the prompt with randomly sampled examples. We argue that this overlooks the socio-technical nature of logging, where conventions vary by component and development team. Off-the-shelf LLMs using random examples are reported to achieve median AUCs of only 0.56 to 0.76, leaving room for improvement without fine-tuning. In this paper, we propose a retrieval approach for LLM-powered log level prediction that prioritizes context relevance over random selection and basic similarity. Our method retrieves logging examples relevant along two socio-technical dimensions: (i) functionality (code performing similar operations) and (ii) ownership (code maintained by the same developers). Evaluating four LLMs across ten popular Java projects, we find that this retrieval improves AUC over random baselines by 0.07 (median), and combining both signals yields median AUCs of 0.83 to 0.97. Our ablation studies show that each signal improves on random retrieval, and that combining them outperforms the stronger of the two on all ten projects. Our results also significantly exceed state-of-the-art supervised predictors (e.g., DeepLV) by a median AUC of 0.12 to 0.19. Our findings highlight the importance of socio-technical signals such as code functionality and ownership for LLM-powered log level prediction.

cs.SE · cs.LG

版本更新 · v4arXiv:2509.06216

Agentic Software Engineering: Foundational Pillars and a Research Roadmap

Ahmed E. Hassan, Hao Li, Dayi Lin, Bram Adams, Tse-Hsun Chen, Yutaro Kashiwa, Dong Qiu

原文摘要

Agentic Software Engineering (SE 3.0) represents a new era where intelligent agents are tasked not with simple code generation, but with achieving complex, goal-oriented SE objectives. To harness these new capabilities while ensuring trustworthiness, we must recognize a fundamental duality within the SE field in the Agentic SE era, comprising two symbiotic modalities: SE for Humans and SE for Agents. This duality demands a radical reimagining of the foundational pillars of SE (actors, processes, tools, and artifacts) which manifest differently across each modality. We propose two purpose-built workbenches to support this vision. The Agent Command Environment (ACE) serves as a command center where humans orchestrate and mentor agent teams, handling outputs such as Merge-Readiness Packs (MRPs) and Consultation Request Packs (CRPs). The Agent Execution Environment (AEE) is a digital workspace where agents perform tasks while invoking human expertise when facing ambiguity or complex trade-offs. This bi-directional partnership, which supports agent-initiated human callbacks and handovers, gives rise to new, structured engineering activities (i.e., processes) that redefine human-AI collaboration, elevating the practice from agentic coding to true agentic software engineering. This paper presents the Structured Agentic Software Engineering (SASE) vision, outlining several of the foundational pillars for the future of SE. The paper culminates in a research roadmap that identifies a few key challenges and opportunities while briefly discussing the resulting impact of this future on SE education. Our goal is not to offer a definitive solution, but to provide a conceptual scaffold with structured vocabulary to catalyze a community-wide dialogue, pushing the SE community to think beyond its classic, human-centric tenets toward a disciplined, scalable, and trustworthy agentic future.

cs.SE · cs.AI

新论文 · v1arXiv:2610.36229

Agent or Human? Detecting Commits by AI Coding Agents in the Absence of Authorship Signatures

Kosei Horikawa, Hao Li, Yutaro Kashiwa, Youssef Esseddiq Ouatiti, Mohammed Sayagh, Bram Adams, Hajimu Iida, Ahmed E. Hassan

原文摘要

AI coding agents such as Claude Code, GitHub Copilot coding agent, and Cursor now commit directly to open-source repositories. Empirical studies of these agents identify their commits through authorship signatures, such as bot accounts and Co-authored-by trailers. These signatures are optional, can be removed, and are often attached to pull requests rather than to individual commits. Hence, it is unclear whether Agent commits can be told apart from Human commits once the signatures are gone. We investigate the signals and limits of signature-free detection using 7,837,946 commits from 1,226 repositories, covering five coding agents and Human commits. After signatures are masked, detectors rank Agent commits above Human commits with a ROC AUC of up to 0.859, and most of this signal comes from message verbosity and change size rather than from the code itself. On the shared sample, gpt-6-sol without fine-tuning reaches AUCs similar to XGBoost and TF-IDF. At the observed Agent share, however, the best detector on the full test set reaches a precision of only 0.332. Detection transfers poorly to held-out Claude Code and Copilot, with TF-IDF reaching an AUC of only 0.524 for Claude Code. Temporal changes also depend on the agent, e.g., Copilot AUC drops and later recovers, while more training history helps Claude Code but not Copilot. These results indicate that signature-free detection can prioritize commits for review but cannot replace recorded attribution, and that studies relying on signature-based labels should treat them as a lower bound on agent activity.

cs.SE · cs.AI