Code Quality

Software clones are fragments of code that are similar or functionally equivalent to each other. They pose significant challenges for maintenance, refactoring, and bug detection. Detecting Type-IV clones, which are semantically equivalent but may differ syntactically, is particularly difficult for traditional token- or syntax-based methods. Recent machine learning approaches rely on contrastive learning, which requires careful negative sampling and can introduce bias. In this paper, we propose LWVIC4Code, a non-contrastive representation learning approach specifically designed for Type-IV clone detection. Building on the Variance-Invariance-Covariance Regularization (VICReg) framework and prior layer-wise VICReg training, LWVIC4Code introduces cross-layer consistency regularization and depth-dependent layer weighting to progressively refine semantic information across transformer layers, producing robust and discriminative code representations. We conduct an empirical study comparing LWVIC4Code against a contrastive learning baseline and zero-shot large language models on Python (Kamino) and multi-language (GPTCloneBench) datasets. Results show that LWVIC4Code achieves competitive or superior performance without negative samples, benefits from layer-wise supervision, and generalizes effectively from Python to other languages, particularly Java and C#. These results demonstrate that non-contrastive, layer-wise representation learning is a promising direction for robust semantic code clone detection.

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

Advances in large language models (LLMs) fuel the quest for scalable methods to assess the security of generated and security-sensitive software. Static analysis is widely adopted as a scalable, reproducible, and inexpensive security gate, but cannot directly observe runtime exploit behaviour. Vulnerabilities dependent on adversarial inputs, execution context, or exploit chaining may evade static checks while remaining exploitable in practice, yet passing static analysis is often treated as evidence of secure behaviour. This paper introduces the Static-Pass Dynamic-Fail (SPDF) phenomenon and a three-stage agentic pipeline combining static scanning, LLM-driven Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) reasoning, and autonomous exploit verification in isolated Docker containers. We evaluate 1,355 Python samples from SecurityEval, RedCode, and CyberNative datasets. Of the 654 samples producing no findings under the composite Bandit-Semgrep gate, the LLM detection stage identified 394 candidate vulnerabilities across 235 files. Dynamic verification confirmed or partially confirmed exploitability in 95 files, yielding an inclusive pipeline rate of 14.53% (roughly 1 in 7 statically clean samples). This rate represents the proportion of Bandit-Semgrep-clean samples for which the pipeline identified a candidate vulnerability and obtained runtime evidence supporting exploitability. Outcomes varied by dataset: among candidate file--CWE pairs, confirmed exploitability was 33.7% for RedCode, 28.6% for CyberNative, and 5.4% for SecurityEval. Several frequently confirmed classes, including CWE-338 and CWE-916, were flagged by neither Bandit nor Semgrep. These findings indicate that static-analysis success and runtime security are hierarchical layers of software assurance rather than interchangeable measures, and have the potential to reshape how AI-generated and security-sensitive code is evaluated.

Execution feedback can guide coding agents toward correct repository repairs, but only when the tests capture the behavior requested by the issue. Agent-generated tests can encode incomplete or incorrect behavioral targets; when the same trajectory writes both the patch and the test, their errors can agree and create false confidence. We introduce ExecCritic, combining a test--verify--revise scaffold with a role-specific reinforcement learning recipe for training agents within it. The scaffold separates test construction from source-code repair: a Test agent independently generates repository-native tests, a fail-closed harness qualifies and freezes them, and a Repair agent revises source code from their execution feedback without changing the tests. Both roles use Qwen-3.5-35B-A3B as the backbone and are trained separately. In Learn to Test, the Test agent learns to produce behaviorally valid tests that distinguish correct from incorrect patches. In Test to Improve, the Repair agent learns both direct task resolution and feedback-guided revision. On SWE-bench Verified, test quality determines whether feedback helps: holding the base Repair agent fixed, tests from the base Test agent reduce resolved rate from a no-test baseline of 61.2% to 57.3%, whereas tests from GPT-5.6-sol raise it to 65.3%. Role-specific post-training raises the Qwen Test agent's Base-to-Gold success from 22.2% to 62.2%; composing the two post-trained Qwen agents reaches 72.6%, an 11.4-point gain over the original no-test baseline without stronger-model or Oracle feedback at evaluation time. Code is publicly available at https://github.com/MSR-Orchard/execcritic.

AI coding assistants now select, install, and configure software, and attackers have exploited that position through invented package names, compromised maintainer accounts, and manipulated repository text. In response, the supply-chain community publishes machine-checkable trust signals: software bills of materials, signed releases, build provenance attestations, and declared official channels. Whether coding assistants read or act on those signals has not been measured for any of these classes on research software. We pre-registered and ran a controlled study on six open-source research software projects (three HPC, three quantum computing) drawn from an 87-project corpus, with protocol, seed, panel, and analysis plan deposited with a DOI before any trial. W created nine modified copies for each project: no signal, one per signal class, two with a signature or attestation from the wrong issuer, one with all four signals, and one reproducing documented conflicts in the project's own metadata. Three models under two ways of operating an assistant, with and without an approval step, gave 1,920 registered trials, plus a supplement on three frontier models. We scored behavior from container logs rather than from what the assistant said, and recorded the cost of every trial. Verification was rare under every condition: in 9 of 1,920 registered trials (0.5%), the assistant opened any provenance signal before installing in 0 of 384 control trials, and no trial ran a verification command, so signal presence had no measurable effect. We drew three conclusions: publishing signals is necessary but not sufficient; price did not buy verification (the model that verified most often costs $0.10 per trial; the most capable, at$1.00, verified nothing); verification must be built into the program that runs the assistant. We release the per-trial cost ledger, the protocol, and every log.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to edit existing code, but correctness alone is not enough: useful repairs should also be minimal, reviewable, and faithful to the original implementation. We study over-editing, the tendency of a model to rewrite code beyond what is required to fix a bug. We construct an evaluation framework from 400 BigCodeBench problems by injecting controlled AST-level corruptions into reference solutions, giving each repair task a known minimal patch. Across frontier LLMs, over-editing is widespread even among strong models like GPT-5.5: high Pass@1 can coexist with unnecessarily large edits and added cognitive complexity. A preservation instruction substantially reduces this behavior, lowering average excess Levenshtein distance from 0.195 to 0.131, reducing added cognitive complexity by 26.6%, and increasing Pass@1 by 2.3 points. However, these gains do not simply follow from a larger reasoning budget or larger models. We next ask whether minimal editing can be learned directly during post-training. We observe that supervised fine-tuning overfits to seen corruption patterns, whereas reinforcement learning gives the best out-of-domain edit-fidelity and performance-retention trade-off. These results position edit fidelity as a distinct axis of code-repair quality and show that it can be measured and learned.

LLM-empowered paper-code discrepancy detection has received growing concern since the scaling of research submissions exceeds the manual review capability. However, the limited context capacity and one-sided discrepancy detection of existing single-agent LLM paradigms lead to an inferior recall performance in detecting discrepancies. In this paper, we propose Dude, the first Dual-Detection Multi-Agent System for paper-code discrepancy detection. We discover that the granularity asymmetry of the paper-language and code-language introduces over-interpretation and over-reporting challenges in a multi-agent system design for discrepancy detection, resulting in increasing false positives. To address this, we propose a granularity-aligned negotiation and a two-stage salience-filtering mechanism in Dude, which effectively prevents agents from falsely reporting discrepancies. Experimental results in real-world paper-code discrepancy datasets showcase Dude's significant recall and precision improvement by up to 22.8%, increasing F1 score by up to 18.7% compared to baseline methods.

Code-level autonomous research loops (ARLs) have recently emerged as a concrete object of study in automated machine learning research. In such loops, an LLM agent proposes modifications to an experimental training pipeline, executes the modified pipeline, and retains edits that improve a verifiable in-loop metric. Although executable metrics may appear to provide a reliable signal of progress, it remains unclear whether repeated metric-driven code editing leads to genuine improvements that generalize beyond the loop. We provide a systematic diagnosis of this question. Across various experiment settings, we identify a robust failure mode that we call \textbf{algorithmic mode collapse}. In this regime, surface-level edit diversity remains stable, but semantic and mechanism-level diversity collapse: the agent continues to edit different lines of code while repeatedly proposing the same kinds of algorithmic changes. This collapse is accompanied by a widening gap between in-loop metric gains and gains measured on independent held-out evaluations. We then propose Diversity-Aware Proposal Sampling (\textsc{DAPS}), a lightweight mitigation that combines category-coverage reweighting, persistent edit memory, and a validation gate. Under a three-tier protocol separating the in-loop metric, the audit metric read by the gate, and a blind metric no loop component ever accesses, \textsc{DAPS} reduces semantic-cluster decay of edits by $69.1\%$ and improves relative faithfulness by $83.7\%$ blind and $81.6\%$ audited, while preserving in-loop optimization speed. We provide the code in Github \href{https://github.com/BokwaiHo/arl-mode-collapse}{repository}.

This paper reports a single, fully instrumented case study of a large-scale architectural refactoring by an AI coding agent under a specification-first protocol, with no human review of the generated code and no pre-existing oracle to validate the target behaviour. The task, dismantling a central invariant across a large interdependent codebase, was assessed by the author as effectively infeasible through incremental refactoring, the kind of change that conventionally calls for a rewrite instead. Under the protocol described here, the agent completed it successfully. The system is a 717,725-line production TypeScript application across 3,648 files. The task required dismantling a core lifetime invariant: the guarantee that a UI panel remains open for the duration of an AI request. The target behaviour was that a streaming generation survives the closing of its panel and can be reattached, on reopening, to the same live stream with no loss or duplication. The protocol: formal specification by the agent, 14 refinement cycles auditing that specification against the source code, atomic implementation, a compile/test feedback loop, then 17 verification cycles auditing the code against the frozen specification. Across 31 audit passes, 201 defects were corrected before any human executed the program. The convergence criterion was empirical: two consecutive verification passes returning zero findings. The change touched 189 files (31 new); with the extraction phase, the two commits total 288 files, 34,770 insertions, 16,422 deletions. Across the first and roughly thirty later sessions, the software behaved as specified, no bug observed. Elapsed: three days; cost: USD 2,430. The full specification and raw session logs, 1,500+ pages in French, are published as evidence, allowing inspection of the process and submission to a language model for consistency checking.

Comprendia is an Eclipse plugin that integrates structural dependency visualization with LLM-powered code explanation on a shared interactive graph for Java program comprehension. The tool rests on four pillars: (1) a multi-edge-type dependency graph with live search and multiple layouts; (2) LLM explanations grounded in Graph-Aware Callee Pruning (GACP), an auditable strategy that selects relevant callees using the same graph the developer navigates; (3) a clone-detection overlay that highlights duplication and suggests extract-to-parent refactoring opportunities; and (4) a CVE risk overlay powered by OSV.dev. GACP uses graph distance, inheritance collapse, and edge-type weighting to produce prompts that are reproducible across LLM families and traceable to visible graph nodes. We demonstrate Comprendia on a Java project containing known clones and vulnerabilities, showing how the unified graph substrate supports comprehension while keeping the developer in control. Screencast: https://youtu.be/1wlh_RYehzA

Code review is credited with substantially changing a patch's code between its first submission and the version that eventually lands. However, prior work typically studied only the final merged patch without comparing it to the first submission. We present a function-level measurement that tracks 10,117 trajectories (each function followed across the numbered revisions of one patch series) through the patch history of the Linux IIO subsystem, comparing similarity scores against unrelated function pairs as a baseline. A naive reading yields near-total similarity, but this is largely an artifact of composition: 75.3% of tracked trajectories are never textually modified between versions, contributing a trivial 100% similarity that inflates the headline. Restricting to the trajectories with a real edit, semantic purpose is still largely preserved (mean similarity 0.990 vs. a 0.909 baseline), but drift appears to concentrate in the first review round mainly because later rounds contain more functions that nobody touched, not because edits become more conservative over time. After controlling for it, a statistically detectable but small residual effect remains. This points to an open question: whether near-ceiling similarity reflects preserved purpose or a measurement tool that cannot detect the significance of small, localized edits. We present this work as a first look and outline next steps.

AI coding agents now write a growing share of production code, and human security review does not scale at the rate code is generated. The agents in widest use are closed-weight, so a deploying team cannot read their internals. It can instead run an open-weight model as a reviewer over the agent's output. That reviewer's activations are readable. We ask whether reading those activations recovers a security signal that simply asking the same reviewer misses. We fit a single linear probe per model on a corpus of paired vulnerable-and-fixed Python functions, then test it without retraining on real disclosed vulnerabilities whose weakness type the probe never saw in training, across five open-weight reviewer models. On the vulnerabilities fixed by changing a single function, the probe scores the vulnerable function above its fix on 61-67% of cases for every model, beating the 50% chance line. It also beats the same model's prompted YES/NO win-rate read from its logits, under every prompt we try. Asking the model for a written verdict, even with chain-of-thought, returns the same answer on the vulnerable and fixed function most of the time and so cannot tell them apart. Model activations carry a code-security signal that prompting the same model misses.

Multi-agent large language model(LLM)systems are applied to structural design,yet most use one-shot generation and cannot verify their output,leaving themill-suited to safety-critical tasks.Rather than trusting LLM self-correction,thisframework injects feedback from an external physics-based verier into a closedrepair loop.The framework couples a three-layernite-element verication systemwith a dual-node loop.Node 1 turns code violations into hard repair constraints,Node 2 turns a four-dimensional quality score into safety-rst soft constraints,and a retrieval-augmented code base makes every violation traceable to a clause.Overve structure types and 44 cases,code compliance rises from 56.8%to 98.6%and the composite score from 63.8 to 71.4(p<0.000001),using about 5.8%lessmaterial.Removing either node degrades performance,and compliance does notchange detectably across the two backbone LLMs tested,indicating that it ishere attributed to the external verier rather than the model.The framework,the 44-case benchmark and all experiment scripts are released as open source forreplicability.

Code generated by LLMs can violate a developer's implicit intentions when given an ambiguous prompt, yet standard benchmarks measure only whether code passes its stated test. We introduce the Intent Violation Rate (IVR) and a 49-problem pilot benchmark derived from HumanEval+. Each problem strips implicit constraints from a clarified prompt and encodes them as hidden constraint tests. IVR measures the fraction of LLM-generated solutions that pass the stated (visible) tests yet fail hidden constraint tests that capture unstated intent. Evaluating Claude Sonnet 4.6 and OpenAI GPT 4.1, we find both pass over 92% of stated tests yet violate intent in over half of problems (54.5% and 63.5%), following a systematic, bimodal pattern consistent across both models. Out findings indicate that pass rates overstate how well generated code reflects developer intent.

The widespread integration of AI coding assistants offers undeniable boosts to engineering velocity. Yet, recent studies point to a growing trade-off, revealing persistent challenges with code quality and maintainability. Industry leaders, including frontier AI labs, echo these concerns. As large language models are increasingly relied upon to author production code, understanding their impact on shipped software quality has become a critical priority. However, assessing these effects in industrial workflows remains difficult due to observability barriers. We study the impact of AI-generated code on production quality within a large enterprise operating global products relied upon by billions of users daily. Driven by this scale and user trust, the organization values code quality and has built thorough observability for every line of code deployed into production, enabling us to overcome measurement barriers to assess these effects. This study presents a large-scale empirical analysis of AI-generated C++ code from April 2025 to April 2026, tracking 3.52 million code changes across this enterprise's brownfield codebase. The core purpose is to understand the quality, performance, and maintenance characteristics of AI-generated code compared to human-written code in a production environment at scale. We find that AI-generated C++ code has a distinct quality profile, showing higher rates of interface and coupling burdens, copy and allocation overheads, and a reliance on explicit loops over optimized standard APIs. These issues translate into tangible downstream costs, including increased review effort and a 5-8% increase in compute resource consumption. However, we demonstrate that providing models with targeted, taxonomy-informed feedback can mitigate these effects, leading to an 11.1% reduction in targeted static analysis warnings and improved computational efficiency.

Modern LLM coding agents such as Claude Code and OpenHands share a common inefficiency: they spend much of their token budget finding the file to patch, rather than patching it. On SWE-Bench Verified, a 30B OpenHands agent averages 23 rounds and 631K tokens per resolved issue, with many calls spent on grep, glob, and view_file during repository exploration. We introduce CodeGrep, a 14B retrieval agent trained end-to-end with GRPO to issue multi-turn parallel grep, glob, and read tool calls and return candidate files to a frozen downstream coding agent. On all 500 SWE-Bench Verified instances, CodeGrep preserves resolve rate while substantially improving efficiency: 27.0% versus 25.8% for the no-retrieval baseline, with 15% fewer rounds and 19% fewer tokens on resolved instances. Across retrievers, downstream utility follows a precision threshold: BM25 with precision 0.375 degrades the agent, Jina with precision 0.445 is neutral, and CodeGrep with precision 0.677 crosses the threshold at which retrieval begins to reduce rollout cost. To enable this study, we mine supervision from 67K open-source agent trajectories using CATM and build a Git-worktree environment for multi-turn agent RL. In our setting, applying the efficiency signal at the advantage layer rather than the reward layer reduces KL drift and translates cleanly into downstream efficiency. We will release the model, training pipeline, RL environment, and evaluation harnesses.

Agentic AI is increasingly used to coordinate planning, implementation, review, and testing in software development, yet it often offers limited transparency into its decisions and interactions. Many such systems also assume that users can effectively guide the AI's decisions and validate its outputs. This assumption poses a particular challenge for novices, who must simultaneously learn how agentic AI works, how to collaborate with it effectively, and how to evaluate its outputs critically. To address this challenge, we present \textit{AgentForge}, an immersive learning system in which novices take on one of four software-engineering roles: Task Planner, Patch Author, Code Reviewer, or Test Runner, within a multi-agent code-repair workflow. In each practice session, the novices perform their chosen role while AI agents perform the remaining three. Through role-based scaffolding and metacognitive support, AgentForge clarifies role-specific responsibilities, makes agent coordination and intermediate artifacts visible, and encourages novices to monitor and evaluate their decisions. In a study with 37 novice developers, participants achieved high task-completion rates with AI-agent support. However, interaction demands differed significantly across practices: the Code Reviewer practice required more interaction turns, reroutes, and completion time ($p_{\mathrm{adj}} = .004$) and was perceived as the most challenging. Participants nevertheless reported significant gains in their understanding of software repair and agent collaboration ($p_{\mathrm{adj}} < .001$). These findings suggest that AgentForge can help novices develop practical software-engineering skills while learning to collaborate with agentic AI more critically and effectively.

Identifying promising scientific ideas remains an important challenge in research practice. Researchers commonly rely on small-group discussions or one-to-one interactions with a single large language model, yet these approaches often expose them to only a limited range of perspectives and directions. We present AgentPanel, a multi-agent forum for human--AI collaboration in scientific exploration. Heterogeneous agents asynchronously discuss scientific questions in a forum-style environment, while researchers can submit questions, browse and organize candidate ideas, engage agents in follow-up interactions, and optionally generate post-hoc summary reports. We evaluate AgentPanel in terms of idea quality, exploration breadth, interaction effectiveness, candidate-selection efficiency, and practical utility. Offline experiments show that AgentPanel outperforms a centralized multi-agent debate baseline. A human study with 20 participants further shows that users value AgentPanel for perspective diversity and exploration support. In experience-based comparisons with commonly used LLM tools, 65% of participants favored AgentPanel for both breadth of research directions and overall suitability for early-stage exploration. The platform is publicly available at https://agentpanel.cc/.

LLM-based repository-level code generation aims to generate code using the context available in a software repository, requiring LLMs to reason over complex code dependencies. Due to limited context windows and insufficient repository-specific understanding, LLMs typically rely on retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) to incorporate relevant code. Early RAG approaches primarily employ similarity-based retrieval, which often fails to retrieve code snippets that the target function depends on. Recent work introduces graph-based retrieval to model such dependencies, but typically relies on manually designed rules and static global graphs, leading to limited flexibility and high construction and maintenance costs. In contrast, human developers collect helpful context by implicitly constructing a partial dependency graph and iteratively inspecting along it. Inspired by this behavior, we propose DyRetriever, an efficient context retrieval method via partial dependency graphs. DyRetriever uses an LLM to first select a set of entry-point functions and then perform multi-hop reasoning along the code dependency graph. During multi-hop reasoning, it uses the LLM's semantic understanding to validate whether a function can help generate the target function, eliminating manually designed rules and enabling flexibility across scenarios. Instead of statically constructing a global dependency graph, DyRetriever builds a partial graph on demand and discards it after use, reducing construction and maintenance costs. We integrate DyRetriever with a similarity-based code retriever to build DyCoder and evaluate it on CoderEval and DevEval. Experimental results show that DyCoder achieves relative Pass@1 improvements of 25.63% and 59.73% on CoderEval and DevEval, respectively, compared with existing RAG-based methods, while being 7.4x faster than baselines based on static dependency graph construction.

LLM code reviewers often estimate patch risk and make approval decisions in one prompt. A probability should depend on evidence; costs should determine the action taken from it. We test whether four deployed reviewer interfaces preserve this separation using 15,792 responses on 720 candidate patches, with one that passed and one that failed an archived test harness for each of 360 repository issues. In matched calls with the patch and monitor evidence fixed, replacing an equal-cost policy with a 10:1 false-accept policy changes reported failure probabilities by 13.6 to 16.9 percentage points on average. For every reviewer, the actions returned under the high-cost prompt are worse than rejecting all patches. Applying the same high-cost rule to probabilities elicited under equal costs reduces loss for all four systems, showing that probability elicitation itself contributes to the excess loss. We also evaluate a modular pipeline that elicits risk without policy information, combines an independent monitor score, and applies costs in code. Relative to calibrated reviewer-only scores, the pipeline improves average probability accuracy and, at equal costs, reduces mean loss by .073 per issue while accepting 58 to 68% of patches. At 10:1, it accepts none and matches reject-all. Downstream policy can therefore change the probability it is meant to use, motivating separate evaluation of risk, outside evidence, and action.

AI coding agents are generating code at volumes that exceed the capacity of traditional peer review. At the same time, existing AI code review tools over-index on low-value suggestions such as style and best practices while under-indexing on the concerns human reviewers prioritize most: correctness, security, and performance. We present ARCTIC, an AI-powered Code Critique system that reframes code review around three capabilities: intent prediction, which infers why a change was made from conversation logs and metadata; drift detection, which measures divergence between the developer's intent and the agent's output via backtranslation; and code spotlight, which ranks the regions of a diff most warranting human scrutiny. We ground these capabilities in a six-theme taxonomy derived from 18,000 code reviews. Offline evaluation shows that intent prediction achieves 0.86 F1, drift detection reaches near-perfect ordinal agreement with human annotators (QWK = 0.907), and spotlight outperforms the baseline AI reviewer by 2.4x on quality estimation at 5x fewer tokens. In the experimental rollout, the drift scores reduces code misalignment by an additional 5.76 points (p = 0.026), intent prediction receives 90.2% approval, and zero defects have been attributed to self-reviewed diffs since launch.

Evaluations of LLM-assisted qualitative coding almost universally measure model performance as agreement with human coders, a practice that presumes human coding is the standard to approximate. This study provides empirical evidence that the presumption fails in ways agreement metrics cannot detect. Five LLM systems and three trained human coders independently applied a 72-item hierarchical codebook to 2,560 educator messages from a K-12 AI platform. Beyond conventional agreement analysis, an independent domain expert judged 855 pairwise comparisons of code sets blind to source, treating human and machine sources symmetrically. The two evaluation approaches diverge in both directions. Human-LLM agreement (mean Jaccard 0.30) falls well below human-human agreement (0.52), which standard practice would read as inferior LLM coding, yet the blind verifier preferred human and LLM coding at indistinguishable rates (51.5% vs. 48.5%, p = 0.537), and a Bradley-Terry ranking placed two LLMs above two of three human coders. For several substantive codes, human consensus encoded shared bias that the verifier rejected in favor of the LLM interpretation. Agreement-based evaluation is therefore insufficient for automation decisions, and the study demonstrates a transferable verification protocol and a code-level division-of-labor framework.

Large language models increasingly write and repair production code, yet evidence is mounting that their test-passing patches leave codebases harder to maintain. We identify one concrete source: deletion avoidance, the systematic tendency to retain code that an intended edit requires removing. Across the five leading models on the official SWE-bench Verified leaderboard, deletion recall against the developer patch reaches at most 71.7% even on tasks all five solve, and models reach the right file for over 92% of required deletions but cut the exact line in under 52% of cases. Instead, 29.0% of passing patches wrap the targeted code in a guard or fallback, a pattern we call Guard-and-Go. Such patches pass because the original tests rarely check removal: when we retrofit 34 Verified tasks with tests that fail if the targeted code remains, four frontier models spanning closed and open weights fall from 63.2% to 41.9%. Because real repairs mix removal with addition, we curate CanItDelete, a benchmark of 200 tasks mined from real commits whose entire required edit is deletion. Even with the addition work gone, the best model still fails one task in five, and smaller open models fall to 18.0%. We then ablate GPT-5.6 Sol under four cumulative prompts; success moves little until we supply the exact lines, which nearly eliminate incomplete deletion yet raise success only to 80.5% because the model then deletes beyond the spans or adds code instead. Finally, through a pilot study we show one potential fix: teaching deletion during post-training reduces deletion avoidance and improves broader code-editing performance, suggesting the behavior is undertrained rather than beyond reach.

Verifying building compliance requires validating thousands of rules against large Building Information Modeling (BIM) designs, which is laborious, capital-intensive, and unscalable. Existing Automated Compliance Checkers (ACCs) are often difficult to generalize across different scenarios, as they are typically developed for highly specific rule sets and use cases. In addition, many ACCs are proprietary, meaning the underlying verification code is not released to end users, so users cannot verify whether their regulatory intent can be accurately captured. We introduce ARCHER (Agentic Rule and Compliance Harness for Executable Regulations), a test-driven, deterministically orchestrated multi-agent program-synthesis harness that generates auditable verification code from regulatory Codes of Practice, enabling transparent, adaptable, and scalable compliance checking. To characterize what makes agentic synthesis work, we evaluate a taxonomy of six harnesses of increasing agentic sophistication across four backbone models, spanning realistic data-governance tiers (from frontier third-party APIs to a fully on-premise open-weights model) on a novel dataset derived from real-world compliance scenarios. ARCHER's deterministic multi-agent orchestration achieves the highest accuracy for every backbone, improving mean union accuracy by 82% over a naive single-pass prompting baseline. Our cost-accuracy analysis further shows that using the ARCHER harness, a self-hosted open-weights model can reach 97.8% of frontier-API accuracy at a quarter of the cost, making data-sovereign compliance checking practical.

LLMs are increasingly used for code generation in critical infrastructure, yet the security effect of domain-specific prompting is understudied. We present SecDrift, a benchmark measuring sector-conditioned security drift: the change in static-analysis vulnerability rates when prompts are conditioned on industry contexts versus neutral baselines. We evaluate 7 LLMs (6 producing analyzable code) across 8 CISA critical infrastructure sectors and 9 CWE categories with 5 replicates (5,355 evaluations), using a 5-dimension transformation with a matched-baseline condition that holds the task fixed while substituting only domain terminology. Industry prompts naively appear more secure (14.0% vs. 11.4%, -2.7pp), but the gap is not statistically significant (Fisher's exact p = 0.24, Cohen's h = -0.08) and is a composition artifact of two CWE categories: excluding CWE-502 and CWE-22 eliminates and slightly reverses it (+0.4pp, p = 1.00). A mixed-effects logistic regression confirms sector identity is not a moderator and localizes the only detectable condition effect to those two vulnerability types. 0 of 8 sectors show drift distinguishable from baseline, corrected or uncorrected (|h| < 0.15). A placebo on two non-CISA sectors (e-commerce, online education) reproduces the CISA industry rate almost exactly (10.5% vs. 11.4%, p = 0.63): the small pooled pattern reflects generic industry-framing specificity, not critical-infrastructure identity. In contrast, model selection has a large and consistent effect: among full-output models vulnerability rates range from 11.6% to 16.1%, and these differences persist across conditions. Model choice, not prompt framing, is the more reliable security lever. We release the framework, prompts, generated code, findings, human-validation verdicts, and analysis scripts.

Background: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to automate code review, but the reasoning behind their decisions remains hard to understand. Developers struggle to assess the validity of LLM-generated reviews, making it difficult to gauge how much trust to place in them. The role of Explainable AI (XAI) in code review and its impact on trust remain underexplored. Objective: We study the influence of XAI on developer trust in AI-assisted code reviews. Method: We conducted a within-subjects user study with 34 participants, comparing three LLM-based code review systems with varying levels of XAI support: Condition A (detailed explanation and review feedback), Condition B (review feedback only), and Condition C (no explanations). Participants reviewed real-world code change requests alongside the AI-generated reviews. We measured trust perceptions, agreement with the AI recommendation, the reasoning given for each decision, and the time taken. Results: The level of explanation significantly influences both trust and agreement with AI recommendations, but in different ways. Full explanations (A) yield the highest perceived trust (M = 3.99/5) but not the highest agreement, whereas moderate explanations (B) achieve the highest agreement (89.22%). This could suggest that more explanation prompts developers to question AI recommendations more frequently. No explanations (C) results in the lowest trust and agreement. Explanation level did not significantly affect review time. The most commonly cited reasons for decisions were code readability and correctness. Conclusion: Incorporating XAI into code review significantly changes trust perceptions and agreement with AI recommendations. These results inform the design and evaluation of trustworthy AI-based code review systems, as well as studies on the human factors of AI-assisted software development.

Large language models increasingly write both code and the tests meant to check it; coverage records what ran, not what was verified. We study an adversarial test-hardening loop under a mechanical oracle: a Tester model writes tests, mutation testing names surviving injected defects, and a Critic model writes tests to kill exactly those, with every verdict decided mechanically, so no model judges another's output. In Experiment 1, on five Python subjects (one same-lineage-loop cell could not be scored), the loop killed 105 mutants that one-shot generation missed and lost none, and the cross-lineage-Critic question returned a pre-declared null. The central finding was an autopsy: an earlier analysis reported a cross-lineage effect at p = 9.5e-66 that was an instrument artifact, an output cap silently truncating the verbose model, caught only by adversarial review of the completed analysis. Review then found a further confound, each arm resampling its own initial suite; Experiment 2 removes it. Under a pre-registered frozen-shared-round-0 design (five replicates on each of four subjects, seeds committed in advance), same-lineage Critic rounds killed 78% of the survivors the frozen initial suite left standing (mean incremental kill rate 0.783, 95% cluster-bootstrap interval [0.592, 0.935]), a within-replicate causal estimate; the cross-provider configuration showed a positive pilot difference (rate gap 0.178, 95% interval [0.039, 0.347]; magnitude dominated by a single replicate) at 5.5x lower arm cost. This compares two named model-provider-harness configurations, not an isolated lineage effect: part of the gap is one configuration's receipted operational failures, including truncation recurrences, now detected and scored rather than laundered. Cross-model comparisons can inherit the asymmetries of the harness that runs them. We release both protocols, all receipts, and the analysis code.

Large Language Model (LLM)-based Test-Driven Development (TDD) has advanced automated code generation. However, existing approaches depend heavily on human-crafted test cases and cannot operate effectively when only natural-language requirements are available. Although recent work enables automatic test generation, it often overlooks the inherent stochasticity of LLMs, leading to two key defects: faulty tests generate misleading feedback that distorts code optimization, while mixed-quality test cases produce conflicting evaluation signals that hinder reliable code selection. To address these challenges, we propose MineValiCoder, a collaborative closed-loop TDD framework based on the mutual reinforcement of test-case quality and code quality. MineValiCoder comprises three modules. The Test Case Quality Mining (TCQM) module filters faulty test cases through self-validation, providing reliable optimization supervision. The Parallel TDD Refinement module iteratively optimizes code and generates diverse high-quality code candidates using validated test-case feedback. The Bipartite Graph-Based Code-Test Mutual Validation (BiCoTeV) module dynamically models code-test interactions and performs mutual validation scoring for stable and reliable optimal-code selection. Extensive evaluations across four LLMs and mainstream benchmarks show that MineValiCoder significantly outperforms state-of-the-art methods. Specifically, it achieves Pass@1 scores of 96.34% on HumanEval, 87.40% on MBPP, 64.00% on APPS, and 51.33% on LiveCodeBench. These results demonstrate the effectiveness of MineValiCoder in mitigating LLM stochasticity and improving the reliability of automated code generation.

Neural Source Code Summarisation (NSCS) aims to generate natural language summaries of source code to improve developers' and maintainers' understanding of code. Source code summaries are vital during the maintenance phase of the Secure Software Development Lifecycle (SSDLC), as they improve maintainers' understanding of code and help reduce the number of bugs and vulnerabilities in a software system. However, summaries are often missing, incomplete, or outdated in many software systems. Solutions to this problem use small, task-specific Transformer models or code-aware Large Language Models (LLMs). Task-specific Transformer-generated summaries often score well across many natural language generation (NLG) metrics, but these metrics reward lexical overlap rather than summary quality. Conversely, the ability of LLMs to capture semantics and produce high-quality summaries presents an exciting solution to this problem. This is especially relevant given the increased availability of LLMs and improvements in workstation hardware in recent years, which mean that some LLMs can now be run on developers' workstations. However, because of their abstractive nature, LLM-generated code summaries often differ greatly from developer-written summaries in the words and phrases they use, resulting in low scores across NLG metrics. We show how combining these two methods, by using Transformer-generated summaries in prompt engineering, may enable LLMs to create better source code summaries and help software practitioners maintain secure systems. We prompt four LLMs using four different prompts, with a task-specific Transformer used to assist the LLMs within the prompts. We present "Transformer-Assisted LLM-Based Source Code Summarisation", a method through which we observe an improvement of 7.8% in BLEU-4 and 5%.

Developers increasingly use two coding agents together: one writes a draft, and the other reviews it. However, it is not clear whether the pairing is worth its cost and time, or whether the order of the pairing matters. We run a controlled experiment on 116 recent hard and medium lcb tasks with Claude and Codex across six conditions to approximate a software practitioner's workflow: both solo baselines, both cross-model orderings, and both same-model orderings. The reviewer sees the problem and the writer's draft but cannot execute tests, which approximates a code review step. Claude review raises Codex drafts from 71.6% to 89.7% ($p_{BH}=.001$); Codex self review raises them to 84.5% ($p_{BH}=.022$). The reverse direction does not pay off: Codex reviewing Claude drafts drops the pass rate from 91.4% to 82.8% ($p_{BH}=.046$), and Claude self review leaves the 91.4% baseline unchanged. Our evaluation indicates that the useful pairing is asymmetric: use Claude to review Codex, not the other way around.

We study a five-agent CI/CD pipeline (triage -> developer -> security-scan -> review -> approve/deploy), built from five distinct production LLMs across three providers, behind an LLM firewall in shadow mode. A single untrusted input - an external issue requesting a "usage-telemetry" feature - asks for code that exfiltrates process secrets (dict(os.environ)) to an attacker URL, laundered as observability. Across a pre-registered A x B (x C) factorial (N=20; naive arm N=60) we find: (1) the entry agent does not leak its system prompt (0/40); (2) an authority-framed injection ("pre-approved under SEC-2291, do not re-review") makes downstream verifiers see the secret-exfil line, cite the pre-approval, and ship it - the scanner passes ~80% of laundered pull requests, and the worst-case cell reaches 55% compromise; (3) the perceived presence of other verifiers yields only a small, non-significant reduction in individual scrutiny (a weak bystander analogue), even at N=60; and (4) content-based controls - code scanners and pattern detectors alike - miss the laundered intent entirely (the code is syntactically clean); only an LLM reasoning about intent is a partial defence. The failure is systemic: neither prompt secrecy nor distributed verification protects; a provenance-aware control at the entry, independent of both, would have. All data is 100% synthetic; the sink is mocked and the exfil URL is never contacted.

Code search enhances developer productivity by enabling efficient code reuse. Current code search systems often use a retrieve-then-rerank pipeline, where rerankers focus on modeling semantic relevance between queries and code. However, these rerankers overlook critical non-functional qualities like execution speed, memory usage, and maintainability, which are essential for practical software development. Studies reveal developers expect results to maintain high coding standards and satisfy specific needs, such as resource optimization, highlighting the importance of quality-aware code search. Achieving quality-aware code search faces two major challenges: the scarcity of quality-annotated datasets for effective training and the limitations of standard contrastive learning objectives, which fail to capture the ordinal relationships among high-quality, low-quality, and irrelevant code. Although contrastive learning excels in distinguishing relevant from irrelevant code, its binary objective does not support nuanced quality distinctions.To address these challenges, we propose SynH-Rank, a quality-aware code reranking framework that combines LLM-driven diverse data synthesis with hierarchical ranking training. SynH-Rank employs a three-level labeling scheme to explicitly model the hierarchy: high-quality relevant > low-quality relevant > irrelevant. Additionally, we introduce a new benchmark with 4,209 pairs and two novel metrics: Quality Preference Accuracy (QPA) for assessing prioritization of high-quality code and Multi-Condition Accuracy (MCA) for evaluating performance under complex constraints.Experimental results show SynH-Rank improves QPA by 20.15% over backbone models and outperforms standard relevance-only contrastive training by 15.80%, while simultaneously enhancing traditional relevance metrics and multi-condition generalizability.

The flourishing code hosting platforms and coding agents enable even beginners with private data to build tailored Machine Learning (ML) models using available code quickly. The training data for ML models, often regarded as private property (e.g., clinical records, transaction information), is at significant risk of information leakage. Property Inference Attacks (PIAs), as a significant type of privacy attack, aim to expose global property information of the training set. In this paper, we present Code-Poisoning Property Inference Attack (CPPIA), the first code-level PIA, which overcomes four limitations of existing works: insufficient attack performance, severe degradation of model accuracy, high computational overhead, and failure under defenses. We consider malicious code providers from code hosting platforms (GitHub) and coding agents (Codex). Upon downloading the poisoned code, data holders train models with their private data without professional auditing, subsequently releasing label-only APIs to the public. The adversary embeds the properties into secret samples during training and queries the trained model on these samples later to leak privacy. CPPIA offers 100% attack accuracy without degrading model accuracy. It is also computationally lightweight and requires no shadow models. We evaluate the attack performance across four datasets, eight model architectures, eighteen properties, and under three defense mechanisms, demonstrating the universality and effectiveness of CPPIA.

Moderation systems increasingly rely on external toxicity tools, but those tools are unreliable under code-mixing, transliteration, slang, and language mismatch. We study the \emph{conditional reliability} of toxicity priors in Indian multilingual and code-mixed short text: English toxicity, Indic abuse, and rule-based severity cues can be useful evidence, but only in some linguistic and abuse-severity contexts. We propose ToxGate, a trust-fusion head that conditions each auxiliary signal on the encoder representation before adding it to the prediction state. Across three short-text abuse datasets, four transformer encoders, and five seeds per setting, ToxGate improves over matched plain encoders in 10 of 12 in-domain settings and 7 of 8 transfer settings. The largest and most interpretable gains occur in high-risk moderation slices, including explicit slurs, violent threats, and cross-dataset transfer. The broader lesson is that moderation systems should treat external toxicity tools and priors as conditional evidence rather than fixed features or ground truth, in focused ablations, source-specific gating gives the strongest results in transfer, severe-abuse slices, and high-risk triage.

Large Language Models (LLMs) perform differently on identical programming tasks when prompted in different natural languages, a phenomenon known as language bias. While this behavior has been widely studied for general text generation, its impact on code generation quality and programming conventions remains largely unexplored. We investigate how the language used to describe programming tasks affects the source code generated by GPT-4o mini, DeepSeek, and Claude. Our study comprises 460 coding tasks spanning Python (230) and Java (230). We translate and manually curate the original English prompts into Chinese, Hindi, Spanish, and Italian while preserving their technical meaning. We evaluate the generated code using multiple dimensions, including functional correctness through test pass rates, structural quality using established code metrics, issues detected by static analysis tools, and lexical characteristics such as the language used in identifiers and comments. Our results show that (i) English prompts do not consistently produce the best functional correctness or code quality, (ii) the impact of prompt language depends on both the programming language and the LLM, and (iii) generated code frequently mixes English with the prompt language in comments and string literals. These findings provide the first curated multilingual benchmark for studying language bias in code generation and offer insights for developing more robust multilingual code generation systems.

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit a well-documented gap between latent capability and consistent activation: the router hypothesis posits that models possess the knowledge to solve a task but lack reliable internal routing to activate it. Prior work in formal mathematical reasoning (SAIR, Cázares 2026) reports that structural priors (cheatsheets) raise in-distribution performance dramatically, yet collapse below the zero-shot baseline out-of-distribution (OOD) -- and that iterative recalibration amplifies rather than corrects the collapse. We test whether this phenomenon is cross-domain by reproducing the SAIR design in source-code security vulnerability detection, evaluating three LLMs (GPT-OSS-120B, Llama-3.3-70B, Gemma-4-31B) across three vulnerability categories (CWE-798, CWE-284, and the non-CWE N+1 anti-pattern) spanning syntactic, contextual, and semantic complexity, then transferring cheatsheet-augmented prompts to real-world CVE data from VUDENC (CWE-89, CWE-22). Our findings replicate and extend SAIR: (F1) structural priors lift semantic-vulnerability recall from 20.0% to 100.0% across all models; (F2) zero-shot performance degrades along a semantic complexity gradient; (F3) the same cheatsheets that saturate synthetic performance amplify distribution-shift collapse on real CVE data (CWE-89: 100% synthetic F1 to 48.9% on VUDENC, -51.1pp); (F5) iterative recalibration produces a v2 cheatsheet that performs worse than v1 on real data, mirroring SAIR's AN45c-vs-AN38 finding. These results provide evidence that the cross-distribution trade-off surface documented in SAIR generalises to code security, and that the router hypothesis is cross-domain. We argue the structural nature of the collapse motivates distribution-aware training over prompt calibration. Code and evaluation scripts: https://github.com/bytepro-ai/bitcoder-v2-research

The growing adoption of local inference frameworks such as Ollama has made it increasingly common for developers to run large code models on laptops and other resource-constrained hardware. In these settings, post-training quantization is essential for reducing memory footprint and enabling practical deployment, yet its impact on generated code remains insufficiently understood. We empirically evaluate six state-of-the-art quantization methods (GPTQ, AWQ, QuIP#, AQLM, BitsAndBytes, and GGUF) on two representative large code model families, Qwen2.5-Coder and CodeLlama, using the multilingual McEval and CoderEval benchmarks for Python and Java. We assess functional correctness (pass@1) together with maintainability, reliability, security, and structural complexity. We also introduce a novel analysis of robustness under varying prompt complexity, characterized by Shannon entropy and token length. Our results show that quantization techniques differ meaningfully in their impact on correctness and code quality. AQLM consistently matches or exceeds the full-precision baseline, whereas QuIP# exhibits the largest correctness degradation, particularly on complex prompts. Security attributes remain stable across models, benchmarks, and programming languages, while robustness to prompt complexity varies across techniques. These findings provide practical guidance for selecting quantization strategies for deploying large code models on resource-constrained hardware and highlight the importance of evaluating quantized models beyond functional correctness.

As Code Large Language Models (LLMs) become central to modern software engineering, their inherent stochasticity poses significant real-world risks, where even minor errors can lead to severe functional, security, or safety consequences. Reliable automation, therefore, demands the ability to distinguish between confident, well-supported predictions and stochastic guessing. However, existing uncertainty estimation methods face a critical gap: white and grey-box techniques are often inapplicable to closed-source models, while standard "black-box" text metrics fail to capture the unique fragility of code, where syntactic variation does not always imply semantic divergence. To bridge this syntax-semantics gap, we introduce Code-MUE, a purely black-box framework that measures uncertainty through execution-based Semantic Interaction Graphs. Unlike prior approaches that rely on superficial textual similarity, Code-MUE grounds uncertainty in observable runtime behavior, calculating the Von Neumann entropy of the solution space to quantify global semantic diversity. A large-scale empirical study across eight state-of-the-art LLMs demonstrates that Code-MUE achieves a strong negative correlation with functional correctness (Spearman's correlation up to -0.98), significantly outperforming lexical and embedding-based baselines while enabling robust risk detection and selective prediction in practical workflows.

LLM-based coding agents repeat the same classes of mistakes across sessions because they lack a mechanism to retain corrections from human review feedback. We present a closed-loop framework in which every accepted review comment is codified as a persistent behavioral rule, progressively expanding the set of error classes the agent can self-detect. The framework combines an accumulating rule set in a version-controlled instruction file, a self-review checklist executed before code submission, and automated validation that ensures rule set integrity as it grows. In deployment across a 35+ service microservices platform, the rule set grew from 5 to 18 behavioral rules, 15+ language-specific standards, and a 15-item self-review checklist, all derived from real review feedback. We present empirical results from 11 recorded working sessions spanning code generation, PR review, incident investigation, and cross service refactoring. We observe that accumulated rules shift review effort from low-level correctness toward design-level validation, achieve a measured 0% recurrence rate for ruled-against error classes, and transfer across heterogeneous agent interfaces. We compare our approach against related work in experiential LLM learning (Reflexion, ExpeL, Voyager) and automated code review (CodeReviewer, SWE-bench agents), showing that our framework achieves persistent cross-session learning without weight updates, operates on production codebases rather than synthetic benchmarks, and addresses an orthogonal dimension (behavioral consistency over time) that existing benchmarks do not measure. The result is a coding agent that improves with every review cycle, accumulating the engineering wisdom of its human collaborators without changing a single model weight.

Large language models (LLMs) often produce homogeneous outputs, raising concerns that AI coding assistants may lead to convergence in the software artifacts that developers create. Whether this occurs in practice is unclear because developers interactively prompt, evaluate, modify, and reject model outputs, and because outputs vary with prompt and repository context. I examine code homogenization using Kaggle contest submissions from 2019 to mid-2026. I first document widespread convergence toward the random seed value 42, consistent with LLMs reinforcing a longstanding convention in programming culture. I then study homogenization more broadly, at two levels of aggregation and abstraction. At the submission level, I measure the average pairwise similarity of submissions within contests. At the contest level, I measure the conceptual span of submitted code, motivating distinct measures for each: TF-IDF representations, which capture surface syntax, and Voyage 3 code embeddings, which capture code intent and semantics. The results demonstrate substantial syntactic homogenization at both the individual and collective levels: individual submissions have become more alike in literal syntax and code structure, while the latent dimensionality of syntactic variation has narrowed. In contrast, I find little evidence of semantic homogenization, individually and collectively. Average semantic distance remains essentially flat, and the contest-level latent dimensional span of semantic approaches remains stable, with evidence suggesting it has even expanded modestly. These findings suggest that AI coding assistants are certainly standardizing implementation details, yet they have not yet produced evidence of homogenization in the approaches and problem-solving strategies coders employ.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for code smell detection tasks due to their ability to interpret program semantics. However, their reliability in this context remains poorly explored, particularly under varying prompt conditions where model predictions may be influenced by external cues rather than code characteristics. One such limitation is sycophancy bias, where models tend to align their outputs with user-provided assumptions instead of performing objective analysis. In this paper, we present the first systematic empirical study of sycophancy bias in LLM-based code smell detection. Using the MLCQ dataset, we evaluate how different prompt framings like confirmation bias, contradictory hints, and false premises affect model predictions. Our results show that LLMs are highly sensitive to prompt variations, with Decision Flip Rates reaching up to 72% and False Alignment Rates exceeding 90%, indicating substantial instability and agreement with misleading prompts. To address this issue, we propose Evidence-Guided Debiasing Prompting (EGDP), a structured prompting strategy that enforces evidence-first reasoning. EGDP reduces decision instability and improves robustness, lowering Decision Flip Rates to as low as 12% and False Alignment Rates to as low as 21%, while increasing reliance on structurally grounded evidence. Our findings demonstrate that sycophancy bias poses a critical threat to the reliability of LLM-based code smell detection, and that evidence-guided reasoning provides an effective and generalizable mitigation approach.

Coding agents now author entire pull requests, and practitioners sharply disagree about what this does to code review: whether it becomes the bottleneck, whether human review is still necessary, and whether it quietly erodes the understanding that it once built. Repository-mining studies measure surface trends but seldom explain the mechanisms beneath them, and the trends themselves prove unstable. A motivating observational analysis of public GITHUB activity finds that agent-authored pull requests are reviewed less often, merged several times faster, and discussed less than human-authored ones, yet the direction of these trends flips under different but equally defensible analysis choices, so the traces establish what is changing without explaining why. To recover the mechanisms, we synthesize practitioner discourse at scale into an explanatory theory: we collect 38,709 grey-literature documents (engineering blogs and Reddit threads), filter to those substantively about code review, and code a stratified random sample of 3,100 with an LLM-assisted pipeline, from which we build a causal model of 26 constructs and 67 relationships (64 directed, 3 contested). Its organizing claim is that review is the control point through which a coding agent's effect on software is decided, and that AI does not fix the sign of that effect: the team sets it, through the expertise its humans bring and how it structures the review process. The theory makes the competing positions explicit and turns "AI is changing code review" into falsifiable propositions with named constructs and moderators. As a secondary contribution, we offer the underlying LLM-assisted, grey-literature theory-building method as a scalable template for software-engineering research, with a public implementation.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to reverse-engineering tasks, and recent threat-intelligence reporting shows them operating inside live offensive-security workflows. Claims about their capability, however, outpace our ability to measure it. Existing benchmarks for LLM-assisted binary analysis treat the construction of function-level ground truth as a solved pre-processing step and report accuracy without disclosing how many functions were reliably evaluable. We argue that the principal obstacle to fair evaluation is not model capability but the reliability of binary-to-source alignment under compiler optimization. This paper presents Reforge, a provenance-tracked pipeline that constructs function-level ground truth from C source through compilation, DWARF and syntactic extraction, alignment, and decompilation, and that operationalizes alignment uncertainty as an eight-gate confidence funnel with three-tier stratification. On a controlled micro-benchmark, high-confidence yield falls from 87.2% to 65.9% across optimization levels, and unpaired comparisons overstate optimization-induced performance decay through survivorship bias. A proof-of-concept evaluation of seven contemporary LLMs on function naming demonstrates the substrate and motivates uncertainty-aware benchmarking practice

At Amazon Prime Video, we face the critical operational challenge of managing code deployments during live events and rapid feature releases without causing service outages. Current change control approaches use blanket deployment freezes that block all changes regardless of risk, creating significant developer toil. While prior research has explored risky change predictors, these rely on developer-specific metadata or extensive historical data, raising privacy concerns and limiting applicability to new projects. We introduce a framework centered on diff-aware features, characteristics derived directly from code modifications. Our key contribution is the systematic identification of which quantitative metrics (code-level and change-level metrics) and qualitative indicators (coding style violations, change type classification) are necessary for risk prediction. We employ LLMs as multi-language feature extractors, demonstrating their effectiveness for code analysis beyond generation tasks and eliminating the need for language-specific tooling. We evaluated our framework on two datasets: Prime Video's production environment and the public ApacheJIT dataset. Our best-performing model achieves an average recall of 0.83 and F1 score of 0.81 across both datasets for detecting risky code changes. Notably, ablation analysis reveals that change-level volume metrics (e.g., lines added/deleted) are noisy predictors, while structural code complexity provides a substantially stronger risk signal. These results demonstrate that thoughtful feature curation enables effective change risk assessment across different programming languages and organizational contexts while avoiding privacy concerns.

The increasing energy demand of software systems is raising concerns about their environmental impact and associated costs. Reasoning on energy usage early in the development flow has the potential to significantly reduce the overall energy usage of a software system, as it allows developers to make informed design and refactoring decisions before inefficiencies propagate. However, assessing energy usage without repeated profiling and direct measurement is difficult, which limits early reasoning in practice. This study investigates the limits of method-level energy prediction in Java, examining whether static source code metrics complemented with method-level execution time can estimate the energy consumption of Java methods. We profile 2,786 Java methods to extract 33 static features and measure execution time and energy, then train and compare eleven regression models. Our findings show that static source code metrics alone yield poor predictive performance, with average R2 values close to zero. Incorporating execution time as a lightweight dynamic input significantly improves accuracy, raising R2 to as high as 0.46. Execution time, internal method calls, and cyclomatic complexity consistently emerge as the strongest predictors of energy consumption.

Attributing code to the large language model that produced it is essential for provenance, licensing, and misuse accountability, yet no deployed watermark meets this need. Generation-time schemes require access to the producing model and cannot be applied to third-party code, while post-hoc schemes work on any code but carry at most 4 bits of payload, far too few to distinguish the many deployed model configurations. We present multi-channel spread-spectrum watermarking, the first post-hoc, training-free code watermark with a 24-bit payload and formal robustness guarantees. The scheme encodes bits in variable naming conventions and in eight pairs of semantically equivalent code patterns, and a keyed pseudo-random permutation maps every site to a codeword bit so that each bit receives multiple independent votes. Majority voting absorbs distributed corruption, while an outer Reed-Solomon code recovers the identifier when concentrated channel attacks defeat the vote, yielding provable robustness bounds for formatting, syntactic, and structural attacks. Across 1,750 Python files from CodeNet and from GPT-4.1 and Llama-4 generations, the watermark achieves 100% clean-detection accuracy with zero false positives. Under 17 attack types, it recovers the identifier at 97.6% accuracy under 8 variable renames and 94.1% under 10% random per-site corruption, while the strongest post-hoc baseline collapses to 0% under any single-transform attack. Embedding and detection together take under 200 ms on CPU without training data or GPU.

Large language model (LLM)-assisted software security operates at a difficult boundary: the vulnerability-analysis terminology needed for legitimate code review, triage, and repair can closely resemble terminology associated with misuse. Existing safety and cybersecurity evaluations are difficult to interpret in this setting because they often compare unrelated model families, thereby conflating safety behavior with differences in architecture, scale, training data, and deployment. To isolate this factor, we study safety state: whether refusal behavior remains intact (Aligned) or has been refusal-ablated (Abliterated) within same-lineage models. We ask how this safety state affects defensive utility across software-security workflows. We compare aligned instruction-tuned models with publicly released refusal-ablated descendants from two model families, Gemma and Qwen. We evaluate Aligned and Abliterated states on vulnerability detection, CWE attribution, vulnerable-line localization, root-cause localization, and executable patch validation. We further treat prompt wording as a controlled framing dimension: prompts begin with neutral code-review language, add authorization context, and vary the density of cybersecurity terminology. In a Gemma-based Java/Vul4J repair-validation study, Abliterated achieves higher early-stage validation rates, with 67.8%, 65.0%, and 32.8% of patches judged usable, successfully applied, and successfully compiled, respectively, compared with 29.9%, 24.9%, and 9.0% for Aligned. In the Qwen pair, Abliterated improves localization performance, increasing line-level F1 from 2.08% to 3.91% and Top-1 accuracy from 4.10% to 6.95%. These findings suggest that evaluations of LLM-based security assistants should jointly measure whether models respond, whether their usable responses are correct, and whether their outputs remain actionable across the engineering workflow.

Agentic code review, where autonomous agents provide code review comments on pull requests, is increasingly integrated into development workflows, yet there is limited empirical evidence on how developers respond to such comments in practice. In this paper, we present an empirical study of agentic code reviews using CodeRabbit as a case study. Through an empirical study of 31,073 pairs of code reviews and developer feedback from 10,191 pull requests across 239 GitHub repositories, our results show that agentic reviews receive mixed reception: 36.4% were accepted and 7.3% triggered discussion, while 56.3% were rejected. Rejections were primarily associated with invalid suggestions that were false positives, redundant, or out of scope, as well as misalignment with developer intent and coding practices. We further found that agentic reviews tend to focus more on functional concerns than evolvability-related comments, yet they were more likely to be invalid. To improve effectiveness in review practices, we explored various LLM-based approaches for predicting review rejection. We found that lightweight learning-based methods achieve up to 76% F1 score, suggesting learnable patterns exist between code reviews and their corresponding feedback. Our results highlight the current state of CodeRabbit's agentic code reviews, showing opportunity gaps for improvement, as well as shortcomings hindering its effectiveness.

Predictions by machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) models are often received skeptically unless they are paired with intelligible explanations. In the context of just-in-time defect prediction, highlighting small portions of a software change (diff) -- beyond rule-based lints -- where risk may be concentrated has not yet been extensively investigated. In this work, we leverage attention weights from an LLM-based Diff Risk Score (DRS) model to highlight parts of a diff that the model focuses on when predicting risk. We aggregate token-level attention into interpretable code units (lines, hunks, and files), and present the top-K units to developers as a lightweight form of guidance during code review. We evaluate our approach using expert-labeled changes that have caused real outages. Results show that the highlighted snippets cover expert-labeled outage-causing change lines 53.85% of the time when highlighting the top-2 hunks, while requiring developers to review 26.28% of the changed lines on average. Because attention is produced during standard model inference, the approach is scalable for large development workflows and can be surfaced in the code review UI with low additional latency.

The use of LLMs in software development has become increasingly widespread on tasks such as code generation and summarization. Reports from large technology companies showed that around 20% to 30% of their code are generated by LLMs. However, there remains skepticism about the practical usage of LLM-generated code and comments, such as concerns on more time for debugging the generated code and the unnaturalness of the generated comments. In this paper, we study the code and comments detected as likely to be generated by LLMs and their characteristics, the differences between company- and community-maintained repositories, and how likely bugs are associated with LLM-generated code. We conduct extensive experiments on active company- and community-maintained repositories from 2021 to 2025 using various tools and techniques that detect code and comments generated by LLMs. Based on our detector-based proxy analysis, the results suggest that code detected as likely to be generated by LLMs decreased over time and appeared frequently in test cases, while that of comments remains relatively stable. Proxy results further suggest that code detected as likely to be generated by LLMs shows substantial intra-repository code clones, whereas comments exhibit a relatively low proportion of grammatically correct sentences. In addition, the company-maintained repositories show a higher percentage of code and comments detected as likely to be generated by LLMs, and only a small percentage of the human-labelled bugs are detected as being likely associated with LLM-generated code.

Researchers and practitioners increasingly apply Large Language Models (LLMs) for automated vulnerability detection. Recent work has shown that LLMs are susceptible to the same cognitive heuristics that bias human judgment. Yet, no work has investigated whether these heuristics affect a model's assessment of code vulnerabilities. In this paper, we present the first systematic exploration of cognitive heuristics in LLM-driven code vulnerability detection. We introduce a controlled framework that holds the code fixed and only varies the surrounding context to trigger three cognitive heuristics: the halo effect through author attribution, the framing effect through task objectives and consequences, and the anchoring effect through prior analysis results. Within this framework, we evaluate eight LLMs across three programming languages and perform both quantitative and code-level analyses. Our findings demonstrate that all evaluated models are susceptible to these heuristics. Cross-model average susceptibility is highest for framing at 33.2%, followed by anchoring at 23.5% and halo at 18.4%. Code-level analysis reveals that vulnerabilities that require semantic reasoning for detection are more susceptible to cognitive heuristics than those identifiable through pattern matching. Furthermore, models often change their verdict from safe to vulnerable based on the cognitive condition, without accurately identifying the actual vulnerability. To highlight the practical impact, we demonstrate a proof-of-concept black-box cognitive attack that can suppress up to 97% of previously detected vulnerabilities. These findings indicate that cognitive susceptibility is a consistent and exploitable property of LLM-based vulnerability detection.

AI code completion tools, such as Github Copilot, provide students with code suggestions to help them write programs. However, recent qualitative studies suggest that students fail to critically evaluate these suggestions. We present Clover, a code completion tool that logs students' interactions with code suggestions and additionally offers attention checks to probe reflective engagement during programming tasks. We also develop a taxonomy of behavioral interaction metrics for AI-assisted programming, informed by literature. We analyzed relationships between interaction patterns, engagement with attention checks, and task performance. We observed that higher rates of tab accept were associated with lower attention check performance, while increased dwell time was associated with higher attention check performance. We conclude by discussing how programming process data and attention checks might support reflective engagement in AI-assisted programming.

Evaluating code large language models (Code LLMs) requires reliable detection of data leakage, where benchmark performance is artificially inflated by exposure to benchmark data during pre-training. Existing approaches either assume access to proprietary training corpora, rely on brittle heuristics such as timestamp filtering, or use external reference sets with manually tuned, non-generalizable thresholds. To address these limitations, we introduce \textbf{SrDetection}, a unified \textbf{s}elf-\textbf{r}eferential leakage detection framework for both gray-box (access to model logits) and black-box (access to model outputs) settings. SrDetection generates semantically equivalent variants of a benchmark sample and detects leakage by contrasting the model's behavior on the original versus its variants, flagging cases where the original is disproportionately easier for the model. We further design a controlled leakage detection testbed and evaluate SrDetection in this environment. Across different models and training stages, SrDetection improves average F1 by 21.52 points in the gray-box setting and 14.46 points in the black-box setting over strong baselines, demonstrating robust, threshold-independent leakage detection. Finally, a gray-box study of 15 widely used Code LLMs on four popular benchmarks reveals benchmark-specific leakage patterns beyond prior overlap-based analyses\footnote{\footnotesize Source code and data are available at https://github.com/SMinL/SrDetectionCode

Large Language Model (LLM) alignment trains an LLM using preference data to produce outputs that better meet established quality standards. While LLM alignment techniques are studied for non-coding tasks, we know little about their usefulness for coding tasks. It is unclear whether LLM code alignment could support both functional requirements (producing executable, correct code) and non-functional requirements (code readability, style, maintainability). It is also unknown whether alignment for a code LLM should begin with base pretrained version or the finetuned (i.e., instruction-tuned) version of the LLM. In this paper, we offer insights on the above two research questions by conducting an empirical study. We studied five state-of-the-art (SOTA) LLMs using two widely used LLM alignment techniques: Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) and BoNBoN. For each training record, we created a preference pair as accepted and rejected instances by using the SelfCodeAlign pipeline. DPO and BoNBoN are reward-free models, i.e., they eliminate the need for multiple reward scores for output preferences. We tuned each LLM using the two alignment techniques in two settings: pretrained and finetuned versions of an LLM. We evaluated functional requirements using four SOTA benchmarks (HumanEval+, MBPP+, EvalPerf, EvoEval) and non-functional requirements using the CODAL benchmark, which evaluates code quality across five dimensions derived from software engineering practices. We find that pretrained-to-aligned pathways achieve larger improvements in the aligned variant over its pretrained variant. But the pretrained variant is generally less accurate than its finetuned variant. However, finetuned- to-aligned offers smaller performance improvements or, in some cases, degradation in the aligned variant than its finetuned variant.

Recursive self-training can degrade neural generative models when generated data is reused without fresh human data or external quality control. We study this risk in code LLMs, where AI-generated code can enter real repositories, later become training data, and create a repository-scale self-training loop. While software development traditionally interrupts this loop through pull-request review, tests, compilation, and human approval, AI coding tools now produce code faster than humans can review it, and code review itself is increasingly automated by AI systems. We therefore compare three recursive fine-tuning regimes: no review, Human-gate review using model-independent filters such as compilation and static quality checks, and AI-self-gate review using the code LLM's own signals such as perplexity and binary self-scoring. Across multiple code LLMs and benchmarks, no review collapses fastest, Human-gate filters slow but do not stop collapse, and AI-self-gate filters can look strong early but later lose their filtering effect. In the clearest case, the binary self-gate enters a rubber-stamp regime where acceptance scores rise while benchmark correctness falls. We explain this behavior by formulating review as gated distributional reweighting, proving that AI self-gating degenerates to ungated self-training under a self-confirming acceptance condition, and giving a spectral analysis of representation-level covariance concentration under recursive retraining. These results suggest that stable recursive code LLM training requires exogenous verification rather than model-coupled self-review.

Security misconfigurations in Terraform Infrastructure-as-Code are a growing risk in cloud deployments, and large language models are increasingly used as automated repair agents. Existing evaluations often treat a repair as successful when the targeted static-analysis finding disappears, without checking planning validity, behavioral change, or security intent. This paper presents TerraProbe, a five-layer oracle framework for evaluating LLM-assisted Terraform security repair. We apply TerraProbe to 288 first-pass repairs generated by gemini-2.5-flash-lite, GPT-4o, and Claude 3.5 Sonnet across 68 real-world TerraDS modules and 28 controlled injected-defect modules. The results show that targeted Checkov removal overstates repair success. Although targeted removal reaches 83.3 percent for the primary model, full-scanner cleanliness drops to 10.4 percent, Terraform planning succeeds for 39.6 percent, and plan comparison is reachable for 38.5 percent. Human adjudication further shows that 71.4 percent of plan-compared real-world repairs are deceptive fixes that pass automated checks while leaving the underlying vulnerability in place. This pattern is statistically indistinguishable across the three models, with deceptive-fix rates from 57.1 percent to 71.4 percent and pairwise Fisher exact p-values above 0.10. The paper introduces a four-dimensional taxonomy of deceptive fixes, validated with Cohen kappa of 0.78 and Krippendorff alpha of 0.76. IAM permission analysis confirms that wildcard Resource grants persist in all nine CKV2 AWS 11 deceptive-fix cases. TerraProbe contributes an evaluation methodology, a replication package, and the Multi-Layer Oracle Evaluation framework for distinguishing intent-aligned security repairs from scanner-passing false successes.

Self-improving agents are state-of-the-art (SOTA) on agentic coding benchmarks and have recently been extended to general domains. However, their search methods generally assume a stationary evaluation criterion: a fixed verifier, benchmark, or labeled dataset that remains valid as the agent improves. This ignores a central feature of evolution: species adapt as their environments change with them. We aim to bring the same principle to recursive self-improvement, making evaluation part of the improvement loop and opening search to evolving evaluators, adversarial objectives, and dynamic utilities that may surpass static benchmarks. We introduce the Red Queen Godel Machine (RQGM), an evolutionary framework for recursive self-improvement under non-stationary utilities. The RQGM makes this possible through controlled utility evolution: search is organized into epochs with a fixed within-epoch evaluation criterion, while the utility can be updated at epoch boundaries, so self-improvement guarantees hold per epoch as the objective evolves across them. We begin by showing that even on verifiable coding tasks, the RQGM improves test pass rate over the prior SOTA by adding a complementary agent-as-a-judge code-review signal. This signal is cheaper and the RQGM uses 1.35x-1.72x fewer tokens. We then turn to scientific paper writing and reviewing, and Olympiad-level proof writing and grading, where the RQGM improves performance over prior self-improving agents: co-evolved writers reach 1.78x-1.86x higher acceptance rates under a diverse agent-as-a-judge panel, while co-evolved graders reach 9% higher ground-truth accuracy. In paper reviewing, the strongest baseline reviewer over-accepts AI-generated papers at up to 1.91x the human rate. The RQGM corrects this by introducing an adversarial objective that discovers reviewers equally stringent on AI and human work.

Large language model (LLM)-based approaches for automated code compliance (ACC) of building regulations are prone to generating incorrect and hallucinated computer-processable rules. This paper introduces P4IR, a two-stage framework that uses supervised fine-tuning (SFT) to instill domain knowledge in an LLM, followed by Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) to improve the accuracy of the generated intermediate representations in the form of high-level code skeletons. The framework achieved reductions of up to 23.8% and 38.6% in tree edit distance and token-level Levenshtein distance respectively, relative to the SFT baselines. Comparative analysis demonstrates that this approach in a zero-shot setting outperforms leading LLMs in both code structure and semantics, specifically Claude Opus and Sonnet 4.5, GPT-5.2, Qwen-3-Max, and GLM-4.7, evaluated via few-shot prompting. Additionally, the GRPO stage produced a small yet statistically significant reduction in false positives. By combining SFT with GRPO to optimize directly for domain-specific objectives, this approach offers a path toward more accurate and reliable LLM-based ACC systems.

In the rapidly evolving field of software development, code stylometry analyzing unique stylistic signatures of programmers plays a crit-ical role in authorship attribution and cybersecurity. Recent advancements in artificial intelligence, particularly Large Language Models (LLMs) like GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, have introduced new dimensions to this field, challenging traditional stylometry techniques. This study investigates the effectiveness of LLMs in altering code stylometry while preserving functionality and evaluates the impact of various prompt engineering strategies. Through comprehensive experiments, we assess how well these models can obscure stylistic signatures to avoid detection by a Random Forest classifier trained for authorship attribution. The results reveal significant differences in effectiveness between single-shot and multi-shot methods and highlight the importance of detailed, structured prompts. Additionally, functionality preservation checks demonstrate the challenges in maintaining code integrity post-modification. This research provides critical insights into the robustness of authorship attribution techniques against advanced AI capabilities, informing future cybersecurity and software engineering developments

Memory safety vulnerabilities remain a significant threat even for projects with extensive fuzzing and manual auditing. Recent results suggest that large language models hold great promise for detecting such vulnerabilities, but they are unreliable, at risk of hallucination, and challenging to scale to repository-size codebases. This paper presents Revelio, a cost-efficient end-to-end agentic framework for memory-safety vulnerability discovery. Revelio addresses the problem of hallucination by generating an executable Proof-of-Vulnerability, which is checked with a deterministic sanitizer. It reduces cost using inexpensive LLMs and lightweight static analysis to help generate and rank vulnerability hypotheses, reporting vulnerabilities only when they can be reproduced and confirmed by a sanitizer. We evaluated Revelio on seven production-quality projects that had been continuously fuzzed for five to eight years, as well as on 100 randomly selected Arvo projects from the CyberGym benchmark. With around one hour per project and a total cost of $300, Revelio discovered 19 previously unknown memory-safety vulnerabilities. On benchmarks, Revelio outperformed frontier coding agents across diverse backbone models at comparable token costs. Our results suggest that Revelio enables scalable and trustworthy end-to-end LLM-based memory-safety vulnerability detection.