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

+6109新增论文
+5222其中 AI 相关
+108已有论文修订
+122新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-05 07:04 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-05 06:17各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-04 07:32 — 2026-11-05 07:32(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:2026-11-05 07:04最近发现新增版本:2026-11-05 06:17库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-04 08:00

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。

14,786 已收录论文12,897 AI 相关3,089 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 2 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-05 07:02(北京时间)
首次观测 · 记录 #1ACL Anthology · ACL 2026:acl:2026.acl-long.19ACL Anthology · ACL 2026

Sense and Sensitivity: Examining the Influence of Semantic Recall on Long Context Code Understanding

Adam Štorek Columbia University, Mukur Gupta, Samira Hajizadeh, Prashast Srivastava Amazon, Suman Jana , Columbia University

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed for understanding large codebases, but whether they understand operational semantics of long code context or rely on pattern matching shortcuts remains unclear. We distinguish between lexical recall (retrieving code verbatim) and semantic recall (understanding operational semantics). Evaluating 10 state-of-the-art LLMs, we find that while frontier models achieve near-perfect, position-independent lexical recall, semantic recall degrades severely when code is centrally positioned in long contexts. We introduce semantic recall sensitivity to measure whether tasks require understanding of code’s operational semantics vs. permit pattern matching shortcuts. Through a novel counterfactual measurement method, we show that models rely heavily on pattern matching shortcuts to solve existing code understanding benchmarks. We propose a new task SemTrace, which achieves high semantic recall sensitivity through unpredictable operations; LLMs’ accuracy exhibits severe positional effects, with median accuracy drops of 92.73% versus CRUXEval’s 53.36% as the relevant code snippet approaches the middle of the input code context. Our findings suggest current evaluations substantially underestimate semantic recall failures in long context code understanding.

尚无 AI 解读,展示原文摘要

cs.CL

Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · 2026 · 正式发表

ACL Anthology · ACL 2026 ↗PDF ↗
首次观测 · 记录 #1ACL Anthology · ACL 2026:acl:2026.acl-long.521ACL Anthology · ACL 2026

XOXO: Stealthy Cross-Origin Context Poisoning Attacks against AI Coding Assistants

Adam Štorek Columbia University, Mukur Gupta, Noopur Bhatt University of Pennsylvania, University of Pennsylvania and Leidos Inc., Aditya Gupta, Janie Kim Google, Prashast Srivastava Amazon, Suman Jana , Columbia University

AI coding assistants automatically gather context from potentially untrusted sources to generate code recommendations. We introduce Cross-Origin Context Poisoning (XOXO), a novel attack that exploits this automatic context inclusion by subtly manipulating code without changing its semantics. Attackers introduce semantics-preserving transformations (e.g., renamed variables) to shared code, causing AI assistants to unknowingly recommend vulnerable code patterns to victims. To systematically identify effective transformations, we present Greedy Cayley Graph Search (GCGS), a black-box algorithm that efficiently composes transformations to identify adversarial inputs. Our evaluation demonstrates XOXO’s effectiveness at making LLMs generate buggy and vulnerable code, achieving average attack success rates of 73.20% against eight state-of-the-art models including GPT 4.1 and Claude 3.5 Sonnet v2, with vulnerability injection rates up to 66.67%. We also demonstrate a real-world attack against GitHub Copilot, highlighting critical security gaps in current AI coding tools.

尚无 AI 解读,展示原文摘要

cs.CL

Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · 2026 · 正式发表

ACL Anthology · ACL 2026 ↗PDF ↗