cs.SEOct 3, 2026

Towards Automatically Pruning Logging Code with Coding Agents: How Far Are We?

Authors: He Yang Yuan, Haonan Zhang, Xin Wang, An Ran Chen, Kisub Kim, Zishuo Ding, Zhenhao Li

Organizations: York University Toronto, Canada · University of Waterloo Waterloo, Canada · HKUST (Guangzhou) Guangzhou, China · University of Alberta Edmonton, Canada · 

Read PDF
Ask AI
Cite

Copy citation

DOINot available for this paper

Abstract

Logging code supports debugging, monitoring, and software maintenance, but excessive logging can add noise, impose runtime overhead, and obscure diagnostic information. While prior research has extensively studied logging code generation and modification, logging removal remains comparatively underexplored. In this paper, we study developer logging removal practices and explore the use of coding agents for this task. We extract and manually validate logging removal cases from Python and Java repositories and derive 10 removal patterns and 11 removal reasons that characterize how and why logging code was removed in real-world software changes. We further construct LogRem, a dataset of 387 real-world cases covering direct logging statement removal, logging infrastructure removal, and logging replacement. We evaluate four coding agents with multiple model settings and compare their outputs with accepted real-world changes. Although 95.6% to 100.0% of outputs pass validity checks, only 11.1% to 19.6% remove the same logging code as the corresponding real-world change while preserving unrelated code. Agents differ through missed removals, extra removals, and unrelated code edits, with substantial variation across logging removal categories and trajectories. Execution cost varies widely, but higher cost does not consistently yield closer alignment. Commit messages and developer discussions provide the largest alignment gains, while taxonomy guidance consistently reduces runtime. Overall, our study establishes logging removal as a distinct software maintenance task and shows that reliable automation depends on accurately determining removal scope while preserving necessary code. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to examine logging code removal from this perspective.

More in this topic

Automated Agent Evaluation

See all 41 papers

Explore similar work

CardsList
Jul 20, 2026

TRIM: Reducing AI-Generated CodeSlop via Agent Trajectory Minimization

Coding agents are increasingly used to accelerate code generation in many downstream tasks, such as fixing bugs, building applications, and prototyping. However, despite their value as coding assistants, agent-generated code tends to be larger and more verbose than the corresponding human-written implementation. In this work, we show that the cause lies in the agent's own search process: while iterating toward a passing solution, an agent accumulates speculative edits, abandoned hypotheses, and temporary changes that persist into the final patch. This may seem harmless for a single patch, but the problem compounds as agents take responsibility for ever-larger portions of a codebase-a codebase that was once minimal and well-maintained slowly accumulates redundancy faster than it can be cleaned up, drifting to a state that is harder to maintain. Given the magnitude of this problem, we take a step towards alleviating this issue. First, we formally define this phenomenon as CodeSlop-the residual and functionally unnecessary edits commonly seen in AI-generated code. We then introduce our algorithm TRIM (Trajectory-guided Redundancy Identification and Minimization). Rather than minimizing CodeSlop directly, TRIM instead minimizes agent trajectories. As we show empirically, this indirect technique of minimizing CodeSlop is highly effective: TRIM cuts CodeSlop by 17.9%-32.9% across agentic scaffolds, with negligible performance regression. TRIM is also highly efficient, requiring roughly half the validation cost of algorithmic baselines such as Delta Debugging.

Alex Mathai, Shobini Iyer, Aleksandr Nogikh +4

Dept. of Computer Science Columbia University, New York City, USA · Google Inc München, Germany · Google DeepMind Mountain View, CA, USA +1

Coding AgentsAgentic Code Generation
AskPDF
May 26, 2026

LogDx-CI: Benchmarking Log Reduction Tools for LLM Root-Cause Diagnosis

CI failure logs are large (median 5k lines, max 200k in this corpus) and noisy. Coding agents that try to debug them depend on an upstream tool to reduce the log to a manageable context, but the field has had no public empirical comparison of which reductions preserve enough evidence for downstream LLM diagnosis. We introduce LogDx-CI, a benchmark that compares 11 context-reduction tools (raw, tail, grep, three RTK modes, two real LLM map-reduce summarizers, three hybrid routers) on 35 real GitHub Actions failure cases, scored by 3 LLM debugger families (Claude Haiku 4.5, Claude Sonnet 4.6, OpenAI gpt-5-mini) plus a Sonnet 4.6 tool-using agent. We report three load-bearing findings. (1)~Hybrid grep+tail routers dominate the cost-quality Pareto frontier; the top two methods score 0.670 / 0.666 at ∼\sim $0.03 per case, same-ballpark quality as standalone grep at 4.5×4.5\times fewer tokens. (2)~In the agent-loop regime, the quality range across reduction tools collapses 7×7\times (single-shot spread 0.42 →\to agent-loop spread 0.059); the agent rescues weak contexts via follow-up tool calls. However, cost differences persist: weak contexts force the agent to issue 2--4×\times more tool calls to recover. (3)~A cross-family LLM-summary pair (gpt-5-mini summarizer feeding a Claude Haiku debugger) beats the same-family pair by +0.071+0.071 averaged across four diagnoser variants, falsifying the self-call-bias hypothesis on this task. The gpt-5-mini summarizer is also the agent-loop #1 method (score 0.749) at 0.370.37 tool-calls per case and 10×10\times lower reducer cost than the Haiku summarizer ($0.18 vs $1.75 per case). All data, code, per-case bundles, and reproducibility infrastructure are public.

Bowen Qin

National University of Singapore

LLM Agent EvaluationAI Agent BenchmarksAutomated Software EngineeringRoot Cause AnalysisLLM Context ManagementFault Diagnosis
AskPDF
May 19, 2026

Does Code Cleanliness Affect Coding Agents? A Controlled Minimal-Pair Study

As autonomous coding agents see rapid adoption, their evaluation has primarily focused on task completion rates holding the target codebase fixed. This leaves a critical question unanswered: does the structural and stylistic quality, or ``cleanliness'' of the underlying code affect an agent's ability to navigate and modify it? To isolate the effect of code cleanliness from agent capability, we introduce an evaluation protocol built around minimal pairs: repositories that match on architecture, dependencies, and external behaviour, but differ on static-analysis rule violations and cognitive complexity. The pairs are constructed in both directions, by agent pipelines that either degrade a clean repository or clean a messy one. We author 33 tasks across six such pairs, evaluated through hidden tests at the application's public surface. Across 660 trials with Claude Code, code cleanliness does not change the agent's pass rate. However, it substantially alters the agent's operational footprint: agents working on cleaner code use 7 to 8% fewer tokens and reduce file revisitations by 34%. Our findings suggest that traditional maintainability principles remain highly relevant in the era of AI-driven development, shaping the computational cost and navigational efficiency of coding agents. Code cleanliness joins model choice, harness, and prompting as a factor that materially affects agent behaviours.

Priyansh Trivedi, Olivier Schmitt

SonarSource

Coding AgentsAI Agent EvaluationAI Agent Benchmarks
AskPDF