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

+2714新增论文
+2419其中 AI 相关
+88已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-06 01:48 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-05 12:13各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-05 02:13 — 2026-11-06 02:13(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:2026-11-06 01:48最近发现新增版本:2026-11-05 12:13库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-05 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。

15,949 已收录论文13,765 AI 相关3,571 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 1 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-06 01:46(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.02721

IssueLighter: An Issue Type-Aware LLM Agent for Issue Report Validity Assessment

Jiawei Ran, Yuxia Zhang, Ziyang Zhao, Hui Liu

Invalid issue reports are prevalent in open source software (OSS) projects, imposing substantial burdens on maintainers who already face a high risk of burnout. Prior research has primarily focused on identifying invalid reports for specific issue categories (e.g., bug and wontfix), leaving the broader landscape of OSS issue types largely unexplored and limiting the generalizability of existing approaches. Moreover, existing methods provide little support for explaining or validating their predictions, reducing their practical usefulness for maintainers. With the rise of LLM-based agents, it remains unclear whether a comprehensive understanding of the causes of invalidity across all issue types can improve validity assessment performance while producing well-grounded rationales. To this end, we first manually annotated the validity status of 520 issue reports from three OSS projects, i.e., pandas, scikit-learn, and mypy, resulting in 257 invalid reports and 263 valid ones. Then, we conducted a thematic analysis on these invalid reports and identified 13 causes of invalidity that are closely specific to issue types. Based on these insights, we propose IssueLighter, an agent-based framework with a type-aware validity assessment strategy that dynamically executes commands. Experimental results show that IssueLighter consistently and substantially outperforms all baseline methods, with an average F1 improvement of over 20 percentage points. Ablation studies confirm that both the type-aware strategy and the taxonomy of causes of invalidity contribute to the performance gains. Qualitative analysis further demonstrates that IssueLighter generates rationales grounded in accurately identified causes of invalidity and supported by evidence. Moreover, leveraging these rationales, we challenged maintainers' original decisions in four disputed cases, and all received approval.

尚无 AI 解读,展示原文摘要

cs.SE · cs.AI
arXiv ↗PDF ↗