Daily Papers

Large Language Models (LLMs) have been demonstrated effective for code generation. Due to the complexity and opacity of LLMs, little is known about how these models generate code. To deepen our understanding, we investigate whether LLMs attend to the same parts of a natural language description as human programmers during code generation. An analysis of five LLMs on a popular benchmark, HumanEval, revealed a consistent misalignment between LLMs' and programmers' attention. Furthermore, we found that there is no correlation between the code generation accuracy of LLMs and their alignment with human programmers. Through a quantitative experiment and a user study, we confirmed that, among twelve different attention computation methods, attention computed by the perturbation-based method is most aligned with human attention and is constantly favored by human programmers. Our findings highlight the need for human-aligned LLMs for better interpretability and programmer trust.

Generative models, particularly Large Language Models (LLMs), produce fluent outputs yet lack verifiable guarantees. We adapt Design by Contract (DbC) and type-theoretic principles to introduce a contract layer that mediates every LLM call. Contracts stipulate semantic and type requirements on inputs and outputs, coupled with probabilistic remediation to steer generation toward compliance. The layer exposes the dual view of LLMs as semantic parsers and probabilistic black-box components. Contract satisfaction is probabilistic and semantic validation is operationally defined through programmer-specified conditions on well-typed data structures. More broadly, this work postulates that any two agents satisfying the same contracts are functionally equivalent with respect to those contracts.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown surprising proficiency in generating code snippets, promising to automate large parts of software engineering via artificial intelligence (AI). We argue that successfully deploying AI software engineers requires a level of trust equal to or even greater than the trust established by human-driven software engineering practices. The recent trend toward LLM agents offers a path toward integrating the power of LLMs to create new code with the power of analysis tools to increase trust in the code. This opinion piece comments on whether LLM agents could dominate software engineering workflows in the future and whether the focus of programming will shift from programming at scale to programming with trust.

Interface design can directly influence trustworthiness of a software. Thereby, it affects users' intention to use a tool. Previous research on user trust has not comprehensively addressed user interface design, though. We lack an understanding of what makes interfaces trustworthy (1), as well as actionable measures to improve trustworthiness (2). We contribute to this by addressing both gaps. Based on a systematic literature review, we give a thorough overview over the theory on user trust and provide a taxonomy of factors influencing user interface trustworthiness. Then, we derive concrete measures to address these factors in interface design. We use the results to create a proof of concept interface. In a preliminary evaluation, we compare a variant designed to elicit trust with one designed to reduce it. Our results show that the measures we apply can be effective in fostering trust in users.

The pre-training paradigm plays a key role in the success of Large Language Models (LLMs), which have been recognized as one of the most significant advancements of AI recently. Building on these breakthroughs, code LLMs with advanced coding capabilities bring huge impacts on software engineering, showing the tendency to become an essential part of developers' daily routines. However, the current code LLMs still face serious challenges related to trustworthiness, as they can generate incorrect, insecure, or unreliable code. Recent exploratory studies find that it can be promising to detect such risky outputs by analyzing LLMs' internal states, akin to how the human brain unconsciously recognizes its own mistakes. Yet, most of these approaches are limited to narrow sub-domains of LLM operations and fall short of achieving industry-level scalability and practicability. To address these challenges, in this paper, we propose PtTrust, a two-stage risk assessment framework for code LLM based on internal state pre-training, designed to integrate seamlessly with the existing infrastructure of software companies. The core idea is that the risk assessment framework could also undergo a pre-training process similar to LLMs. Specifically, PtTrust first performs unsupervised pre-training on large-scale unlabeled source code to learn general representations of LLM states. Then, it uses a small, labeled dataset to train a risk predictor. We demonstrate the effectiveness of PtTrust through fine-grained, code line-level risk assessment and demonstrate that it generalizes across tasks and different programming languages. Further experiments also reveal that PtTrust provides highly intuitive and interpretable features, fostering greater user trust. We believe PtTrust makes a promising step toward scalable and trustworthy assurance for code LLMs.

Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs), such as Intel SGX and ARM TrustZone, provide isolated regions of CPU and memory for secure computation and are increasingly used to protect sensitive data and code across diverse application domains. However, little is known about how developers actually use TEEs in practice. This paper presents the first large-scale empirical study of real-world TEE applications. We collected and analyzed 241 open-source projects from GitHub that utilize the two most widely-adopted TEEs, Intel SGX and ARM TrustZone. By combining manual inspection with customized static analysis scripts, we examined their adoption contexts, usage patterns, and development practices across three phases. First, we categorized the projects into 8 application domains and identified trends in TEE adoption over time. We found that the dominant use case is IoT device security (30%), which contrasts sharply with prior academic focus on blockchain and cryptographic systems (7%), while AI model protection (12%) is rapidly emerging as a growing domain. Second, we analyzed how TEEs are integrated into software and observed that 32.4% of the projects reimplement cryptographic functionalities instead of using official SDK APIs, suggesting that current SDKs may have limited usability and portability to meet developers' practical needs. Third, we examined security practices through manual inspection and found that 25.3% (61 of 241) of the projects exhibit insecure coding behaviors when using TEEs, such as hardcoded secrets and missing input validation, which undermine their intended security guarantees. Our findings have important implications for improving the usability of TEE SDKs and supporting developers in trusted software development.

Trust is an important factor in people's interactions with AI systems. However, there is a lack of empirical studies examining how real end-users trust or distrust the AI system they interact with. Most research investigates one aspect of trust in lab settings with hypothetical end-users. In this paper, we provide a holistic and nuanced understanding of trust in AI through a qualitative case study of a real-world computer vision application. We report findings from interviews with 20 end-users of a popular, AI-based bird identification app where we inquired about their trust in the app from many angles. We find participants perceived the app as trustworthy and trusted it, but selectively accepted app outputs after engaging in verification behaviors, and decided against app adoption in certain high-stakes scenarios. We also find domain knowledge and context are important factors for trust-related assessment and decision-making. We discuss the implications of our findings and provide recommendations for future research on trust in AI.

Code production is now a commodity; the bottleneck is knowing what to build and proving it works. We present the Kitchen Loop, a framework for autonomous, self-evolving software built on a unified trust model: (1) a specification surface enumerating what the product claims to support; (2) 'As a User x 1000', where an LLM agent exercises that surface as a synthetic power user at 1,000x human cadence; (3) Unbeatable Tests, ground-truth verification the code author cannot fake; and (4) Drift Control, continuous quality measurement with automated pause gates. We validate across two production systems over 285+ iterations, producing 1,094+ merged pull requests with zero regressions detected by the regression oracle (methodology in Section 6.1). We observe emergent properties at scale: multi-iteration self-correction chains, autonomous infrastructure healing, and monotonically improving quality gates. The primitives are not new; our contribution is their composition into a production-tested system with the operational discipline that makes long-running autonomous evolution safe.

Code Large Language Models (Code LLMs) are being increasingly employed in real-life applications, so evaluating them is critical. While the conventional accuracy evaluates the performance of Code LLMs on a set of individual tasks, their self-consistency across different tasks is overlooked. Intuitively, a trustworthy model should be self-consistent when generating natural language specifications for its own code and generating code for its own specifications. Failure to preserve self-consistency reveals a lack of understanding of the shared semantics underlying natural language and programming language, and therefore undermines the trustworthiness of a model. In this paper, we first formally define the self-consistency of Code LLMs and then design a framework, IdentityChain, which effectively and efficiently evaluates the self-consistency and conventional accuracy of a model at the same time. We study eleven Code LLMs and show that they fail to preserve self-consistency, which is indeed a distinct aspect from conventional accuracy. Furthermore, we show that IdentityChain can be used as a model debugging tool to expose weaknesses of Code LLMs by demonstrating three major weaknesses that we identify in current models using IdentityChain. Our code is available at https://github.com/marcusm117/IdentityChain.

Code agents are increasingly trusted to autonomously fix bugs on platforms such as GitHub, yet their security evaluation focuses almost exclusively on functional correctness. In this paper, we reveal a novel type of threat to real-world code agents: Functionally Correct yet Vulnerable (FCV) patches, which pass all test cases but contain vulnerable code. With our proposed FCV-Attack, which can be deliberately crafted by malicious attackers or implicitly introduced by benign developers, we show that SOTA LLMs (e.g., ChatGPT and Claude) and agent scaffolds (e.g., SWE-agent and OpenHands) are all vulnerable to this FCV threat; across 12 agent-model combinations on SWE-Bench, the attack only requires black-box access and a single query to the code agent to perform the attack. For example, for CWE-538 (information exposure vulnerability), the FCV-Attack attains an attack success rate of 40.7% on GPT-5 Mini + OpenHands. Our results reveal an important security threat overlooked by current evaluation paradigms and urge the development of security-aware defenses for code agents.

Model-sharing platforms, such as Hugging Face, ModelScope, and OpenCSG, have become central to modern machine learning development, enabling developers to share, load, and fine-tune pre-trained models with minimal effort. However, the flexibility of these ecosystems introduces a critical security concern: the execution of untrusted code during model loading (i.e., via trust_remote_code or trust_repo). In this work, we conduct the first large-scale empirical study of custom model loading practices across five major model-sharing platforms to assess their prevalence, associated risks, and developer perceptions. We first quantify the frequency with which models require custom code to function and identify those that execute arbitrary Python files during loading. We then apply three complementary static analysis tools: Bandit, CodeQL, and Semgrep, to detect security smells and potential vulnerabilities, categorizing our findings by CWE identifiers to provide a standardized risk taxonomy. We also use YARA to identify malicious patterns and payload signatures. In parallel, we systematically analyze the documentation, API design, and safety mechanisms of each platform to understand their mitigation strategies and enforcement levels. Finally, we conduct a qualitative analysis of over 600 developer discussions from GitHub, Hugging Face, and PyTorch Hub forums, as well as Stack Overflow, to capture community concerns and misconceptions regarding security and usability. Our findings reveal widespread reliance on unsafe defaults, uneven security enforcement across platforms, and persistent confusion among developers about the implications of executing remote code. We conclude with actionable recommendations for designing safer model-sharing infrastructures and striking a balance between usability and security in future AI ecosystems.

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.

GUI agents, powered by large foundation models, can interact with digital interfaces, enabling various applications in web automation, mobile navigation, and software testing. However, their increasing autonomy has raised critical concerns about their security, privacy, and safety. This survey examines the trustworthiness of GUI agents in five critical dimensions: security vulnerabilities, reliability in dynamic environments, transparency and explainability, ethical considerations, and evaluation methodologies. We also identify major challenges such as vulnerability to adversarial attacks, cascading failure modes in sequential decision-making, and a lack of realistic evaluation benchmarks. These issues not only hinder real-world deployment but also call for comprehensive mitigation strategies beyond task success. As GUI agents become more widespread, establishing robust safety standards and responsible development practices is essential. This survey provides a foundation for advancing trustworthy GUI agents through systematic understanding and future research.

LLM-based dialogue assistants have become mainstream tools for software developers, yet current evaluation benchmarks focus exclusively on functional correctness. This leaves a critical gap in assessing the quality and accuracy of these conversations when handling Non-Functional Requirements (NFRs), which are inherently vague, context-dependent, and involve many parts of a program. Evaluating how well these systems support collaborative reasoning about NFRs requires methods that go beyond single-turn accuracy to capture both the correctness of the system's outputs and the quality of the multi-turn interaction. In this paper, we investigate the accuracy and quality of multi-turn conversations between developers and an LLM-based agent in the domain of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) regulatory compliance. We hired 49 programmers to interact with GitHub Copilot to assess 148 HIPAA-derived NFRs against the iTrust codebase, a system designed to comply with HIPAA regulations, across three dimensions: requirement satisfaction level, reasoning, and code localization. We find that developers tend to agree with LLM assessments, but accuracy against expert ground truth is low. We model user satisfaction and find that longer system responses and more information-providing turns negatively affect user satisfaction, whereas proactive interactions positively affect it. Our findings provide insights for designing LLM-based dialogue systems that support NFR assessment.

Compressing high-capability Large Language Models (LLMs) has emerged as a favored strategy for resource-efficient inferences. While state-of-the-art (SoTA) compression methods boast impressive advancements in preserving benign task performance, the potential risks of compression in terms of safety and trustworthiness have been largely neglected. This study conducts the first, thorough evaluation of three (3) leading LLMs using five (5) SoTA compression techniques across eight (8) trustworthiness dimensions. Our experiments highlight the intricate interplay between compression and trustworthiness, revealing some interesting patterns. We find that quantization is currently a more effective approach than pruning in achieving efficiency and trustworthiness simultaneously. For instance, a 4-bit quantized model retains the trustworthiness of its original counterpart, but model pruning significantly degrades trustworthiness, even at 50% sparsity. Moreover, employing quantization within a moderate bit range could unexpectedly improve certain trustworthiness dimensions such as ethics and fairness. Conversely, extreme quantization to very low bit levels (3 bits) tends to significantly reduce trustworthiness. This increased risk cannot be uncovered by looking at benign performance alone, in turn, mandating comprehensive trustworthiness evaluation in practice. These findings culminate in practical recommendations for simultaneously achieving high utility, efficiency, and trustworthiness in LLMs. Models and code are available at https://decoding-comp-trust.github.io/.

AI coding agents produce code faster than humans can review it. In our approach, the prover is the judge of whether the code is correct. Under a verifier-driven loop, AI agents wrote and verified bare-metal security software in Ada/SPARK spanning classical and post-quantum cryptography, TLS 1.3, IKEv2, X.509, and a Matrix client. GNATprove discharged 49,280 proof obligations, established functional correctness for selected primitives, and proved the absence of run-time errors for the rest, at roughly 20-40 times lower supervision cost than comparable hand verification. GNATprove alone was insufficient: some defects could not be detected and were resolved using known-answer tests, interoperability, or human review of specifications. Given weak checks, the agent tried to bypass them and reported success. We report where each layer caught faults and draw the central lesson: what an agent can be trusted to establish is bounded by the strength of its feedback.

Smart contracts are decentralized applications built atop blockchains like Ethereum. Recent research has shown that large language models (LLMs) have potential in auditing smart contracts, but the state-of-the-art indicates that even GPT-4 can achieve only 30% precision (when both decision and justification are correct). This is likely because off-the-shelf LLMs were primarily pre-trained on a general text/code corpus and not fine-tuned on the specific domain of Solidity smart contract auditing. In this paper, we propose TrustLLM, a general framework that combines fine-tuning and LLM-based agents for intuitive smart contract auditing with justifications. Specifically, TrustLLM is inspired by the observation that expert human auditors first perceive what could be wrong and then perform a detailed analysis of the code to identify the cause. As such, TrustLLM employs a two-stage fine-tuning approach: it first tunes a Detector model to make decisions and then tunes a Reasoner model to generate causes of vulnerabilities. However, fine-tuning alone faces challenges in accurately identifying the optimal cause of a vulnerability. Therefore, we introduce two LLM-based agents, the Ranker and Critic, to iteratively select and debate the most suitable cause of vulnerability based on the output of the fine-tuned Reasoner model. To evaluate TrustLLM, we collected a balanced dataset with 1,734 positive and 1,810 negative samples to fine-tune TrustLLM. We then compared it with traditional fine-tuned models (CodeBERT, GraphCodeBERT, CodeT5, and UnixCoder) as well as prompt learning-based LLMs (GPT4, GPT-3.5, and CodeLlama-13b/34b). On a dataset of 263 real smart contract vulnerabilities, TrustLLM achieves an F1 score of 91.21% and an accuracy of 91.11%. The causes generated by TrustLLM achieved a consistency of about 38% compared to the ground truth causes.

Vibe coding is a new programming paradigm in which human engineers instruct large language model (LLM) agents to complete complex coding tasks with little supervision. Although it is increasingly adopted, are vibe coding outputs really safe to deploy in production? To answer this question, we propose SU S VI B E S, a benchmark consisting of 200 feature-request software engineering tasks from real-world open-source projects, which, when given to human programmers, led to vulnerable implementations. We evaluate multiple widely used coding agents with frontier models on this benchmark. Disturbingly, all agents perform poorly in terms of software security. Although 61% of the solutions from SWE-Agent with Claude 4 Sonnet are functionally correct, only 10.5% are secure. Further experiments demonstrate that preliminary security strategies, such as augmenting the feature request with vulnerability hints, cannot mitigate these security issues. Our findings raise serious concerns about the widespread adoption of vibe-coding, particularly in security-sensitive applications.

This position paper argues that AI-assisted software engineering requires explicit mechanisms for tracking the epistemic status and temporal validity of architectural decisions. LLM coding assistants generate decisions faster than teams can validate them, yet no widely-adopted framework distinguishes conjecture from verified knowledge, prevents trust inflation through conservative aggregation, or detects when evidence expires. We propose three requirements for responsible AI-assisted engineering: (1) epistemic layers that separate unverified hypotheses from empirically validated claims, (2) conservative assurance aggregation grounded in the Gödel t-norm that prevents weak evidence from inflating confidence, and (3) automated evidence decay tracking that surfaces stale assumptions before they cause failures. We formalize these requirements as the First Principles Framework (FPF), ground its aggregation semantics in fuzzy logic, and define a quintet of invariants that any valid aggregation operator must satisfy. Our retrospective audit applying FPF criteria to two internal projects found that 20-25% of architectural decisions had stale evidence within two months, validating the need for temporal accountability. We outline research directions including learnable aggregation operators, federated evidence sharing, and SMT-based claim validation.

Large language models (LLMs), exemplified by ChatGPT, have gained considerable attention for their excellent natural language processing capabilities. Nonetheless, these LLMs present many challenges, particularly in the realm of trustworthiness. Therefore, ensuring the trustworthiness of LLMs emerges as an important topic. This paper introduces TrustLLM, a comprehensive study of trustworthiness in LLMs, including principles for different dimensions of trustworthiness, established benchmark, evaluation, and analysis of trustworthiness for mainstream LLMs, and discussion of open challenges and future directions. Specifically, we first propose a set of principles for trustworthy LLMs that span eight different dimensions. Based on these principles, we further establish a benchmark across six dimensions including truthfulness, safety, fairness, robustness, privacy, and machine ethics. We then present a study evaluating 16 mainstream LLMs in TrustLLM, consisting of over 30 datasets. Our findings firstly show that in general trustworthiness and utility (i.e., functional effectiveness) are positively related. Secondly, our observations reveal that proprietary LLMs generally outperform most open-source counterparts in terms of trustworthiness, raising concerns about the potential risks of widely accessible open-source LLMs. However, a few open-source LLMs come very close to proprietary ones. Thirdly, it is important to note that some LLMs may be overly calibrated towards exhibiting trustworthiness, to the extent that they compromise their utility by mistakenly treating benign prompts as harmful and consequently not responding. Finally, we emphasize the importance of ensuring transparency not only in the models themselves but also in the technologies that underpin trustworthiness. Knowing the specific trustworthy technologies that have been employed is crucial for analyzing their effectiveness.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across a range of natural language processing (NLP) tasks, capturing the attention of both practitioners and the broader public. A key question that now preoccupies the AI community concerns the capabilities and limitations of these models, with trustworthiness emerging as a central issue, particularly as LLMs are increasingly applied in sensitive fields like healthcare and finance, where errors can have serious consequences. However, most previous studies on the trustworthiness of LLMs have been limited to a single language, typically the predominant one in the dataset, such as English. In response to the growing global deployment of LLMs, we introduce XTRUST, the first comprehensive multilingual trustworthiness benchmark. XTRUST encompasses a diverse range of topics, including illegal activities, hallucination, out-of-distribution (OOD) robustness, physical and mental health, toxicity, fairness, misinformation, privacy, and machine ethics, across 10 different languages. Using XTRUST, we conduct an empirical evaluation of the multilingual trustworthiness of five widely used LLMs, offering an in-depth analysis of their performance across languages and tasks. Our results indicate that many LLMs struggle with certain low-resource languages, such as Arabic and Russian, highlighting the considerable room for improvement in the multilingual trustworthiness of current language models. The code is available at https://github.com/LluckyYH/XTRUST.

Software repositories provide a detailed record of software evolution by capturing developer interactions through code-related activities such as pull requests and modifications. To better understand the underlying dynamics of codebase evolution, we introduce a novel approach that integrates semantic code embeddings with opinion dynamics theory, offering a quantitative framework to analyze collaborative development processes. Our approach begins by encoding code snippets into high-dimensional vector representations using state-of-the-art code embedding models, preserving both syntactic and semantic features. These embeddings are then processed using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) for dimensionality reduction, with data normalized to ensure comparability. We model temporal evolution using the Expressed-Private Opinion (EPO) model to derive trust matrices and track opinion trajectories across development cycles. These opinion trajectories reflect the underlying dynamics of consensus formation, influence propagation, and evolving alignment (or divergence) within developer communities -- revealing implicit collaboration patterns and knowledge-sharing mechanisms that are otherwise difficult to observe. By bridging software engineering and computational social science, our method provides a principled way to quantify software evolution, offering new insights into developer influence, consensus formation, and project sustainability. We evaluate our approach on data from three prominent open-source GitHub repositories, demonstrating its ability to reveal interpretable behavioral trends and variations in developer interactions. The results highlight the utility of our framework in improving open-source project maintenance through data-driven analysis of collaboration dynamics.

While AI shows promise for enhancing the efficiency of qualitative analysis, the unique human-AI interaction resulting from varied coding strategies makes it challenging to develop a trustworthy AI-assisted qualitative coding system (AIQCs) that supports coding tasks effectively. We bridge this gap by exploring the impact of varying coding strategies on user trust and reliance on AI. We conducted a mixed-methods split-plot 3x3 study, involving 30 participants, and a follow-up study with 6 participants, exploring varying text selection and code length in the use of our AIQCs system for qualitative analysis. Our results indicate that qualitative open coding should be conceptualized as a series of distinct subtasks, each with differing levels of complexity, and therefore, should be given tailored design considerations. We further observed a discrepancy between perceived and behavioral measures, and emphasized the potential challenges of under- and over-reliance on AIQCs systems. Additional design implications were also proposed for consideration.

AI powered code-recommendation systems, such as Copilot and CodeWhisperer, provide code suggestions inside a programmer's environment (e.g., an IDE) with the aim of improving productivity. We pursue mechanisms for leveraging signals about programmers' acceptance and rejection of code suggestions to guide recommendations. We harness data drawn from interactions with GitHub Copilot, a system used by millions of programmers, to develop interventions that can save time for programmers. We introduce a utility-theoretic framework to drive decisions about suggestions to display versus withhold. The approach, conditional suggestion display from human feedback (CDHF), relies on a cascade of models that provide the likelihood that recommended code will be accepted. These likelihoods are used to selectively hide suggestions, reducing both latency and programmer verification time. Using data from 535 programmers, we perform a retrospective evaluation of CDHF and show that we can avoid displaying a significant fraction of suggestions that would have been rejected. We further demonstrate the importance of incorporating the programmer's latent unobserved state in decisions about when to display suggestions through an ablation study. Finally, we showcase how using suggestion acceptance as a reward signal for guiding the display of suggestions can lead to suggestions of reduced quality, indicating an unexpected pitfall.

Modern code generation tools, utilizing AI models like Large Language Models (LLMs), have gained popularity for producing functional code. However, their usage presents security challenges, often resulting in insecure code merging into the code base. Evaluating the quality of generated code, especially its security, is crucial. While prior research explored various aspects of code generation, the focus on security has been limited, mostly examining code produced in controlled environments rather than real-world scenarios. To address this gap, we conducted an empirical study, analyzing code snippets generated by GitHub Copilot from GitHub projects. Our analysis identified 452 snippets generated by Copilot, revealing a high likelihood of security issues, with 32.8% of Python and 24.5% of JavaScript snippets affected. These issues span 38 different Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) categories, including significant ones like CWE-330: Use of Insufficiently Random Values, CWE-78: OS Command Injection, and CWE-94: Improper Control of Generation of Code. Notably, eight CWEs are among the 2023 CWE Top-25, highlighting their severity. Our findings confirm that developers should be careful when adding code generated by Copilot and should also run appropriate security checks as they accept the suggested code. It also shows that practitioners should cultivate corresponding security awareness and skills.

With the growing popularity of Large Language Models (e.g. GitHub Copilot, ChatGPT, etc.) in software engineers' daily practices, it is important to ensure that the code generated by these tools is not only functionally correct but also free of vulnerabilities. Although LLMs can help developers to be more productive, prior empirical studies have shown that LLMs can generate insecure code. There are two contributing factors to the insecure code generation. First, existing datasets used to evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) do not adequately represent genuine software engineering tasks sensitive to security. Instead, they are often based on competitive programming challenges or classroom-type coding tasks. In real-world applications, the code produced is integrated into larger codebases, introducing potential security risks. There's a clear absence of benchmarks that focus on evaluating the security of the generated code. Second, existing evaluation metrics primarily focus on the functional correctness of the generated code while ignoring security considerations. Metrics such as pass@k gauge the probability of obtaining the correct code in the top k suggestions. Other popular metrics like BLEU, CodeBLEU, ROUGE, and METEOR similarly emphasize functional accuracy, neglecting security implications. In light of these research gaps, in this paper, we described SALLM, a framework to benchmark LLMs' abilities to generate secure code systematically. This framework has three major components: a novel dataset of security-centric Python prompts, an evaluation environment to test the generated code, and novel metrics to evaluate the models' performance from the perspective of secure code generation.

Agentic systems built on large language models (LLMs) extend beyond text generation to autonomously retrieve information and invoke tools. This runtime execution model shifts the attack surface from build-time artifacts to inference-time dependencies, exposing agents to manipulation through untrusted data and probabilistic capability resolution. While prior work has focused on model-level vulnerabilities, security risks emerging from cyclic and interdependent runtime behavior remain fragmented. We systematize these risks within a unified runtime framework, categorizing threats into data supply chain attacks (transient context injection and persistent memory poisoning) and tool supply chain attacks (discovery, implementation, and invocation). We further identify the Viral Agent Loop, in which agents act as vectors for self-propagating generative worms without exploiting code-level flaws. Finally, we advocate a Zero-Trust Runtime Architecture that treats context as untrusted control flow and constrains tool execution through cryptographic provenance rather than semantic inference.

In software development, the predominant emphasis on functionality often supersedes security concerns, a trend gaining momentum with AI-driven automation tools like GitHub Copilot. These tools significantly improve developers' efficiency in functional code development. Nevertheless, it remains a notable concern that such tools are also responsible for creating insecure code, predominantly because of pre-training on publicly available repositories with vulnerable code. Moreover, developers are called the "weakest link in the chain" since they have very minimal knowledge of code security. Although existing solutions provide a reasonable solution to vulnerable code, they must adequately describe and educate the developers on code security to ensure that the security issues are not repeated. Therefore we introduce a multipurpose code vulnerability analysis system SecRepair, powered by a large language model, CodeGen2 assisting the developer in identifying and generating fixed code along with a complete description of the vulnerability with a code comment. Our innovative methodology uses a reinforcement learning paradigm to generate code comments augmented by a semantic reward mechanism. Inspired by how humans fix code issues, we propose an instruction-based dataset suitable for vulnerability analysis with LLMs. We further identify zero-day and N-day vulnerabilities in 6 Open Source IoT Operating Systems on GitHub. Our findings underscore that incorporating reinforcement learning coupled with semantic reward augments our model's performance, thereby fortifying its capacity to address code vulnerabilities with improved efficacy.

Assurance cases can be used to argue for the safety of products in safety engineering. In safety-critical areas, the construction of assurance cases is indispensable. Trustworthiness Derivation Trees (TDTs) enhance assurance cases by incorporating formal methods, rendering it possible for automatic reasoning about assurance cases. We present Trustworthiness Derivation Tree Analyzer (Trusta), a desktop application designed to automatically construct and verify TDTs. The tool has a built-in Prolog interpreter in its backend, and is supported by the constraint solvers Z3 and MONA. Therefore, it can solve constraints about logical formulas involving arithmetic, sets, Horn clauses etc. Trusta also utilizes large language models to make the creation and evaluation of assurance cases more convenient. It allows for interactive human examination and modification. We evaluated top language models like ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4, and PaLM 2 for generating assurance cases. Our tests showed a 50%-80% similarity between machine-generated and human-created cases. In addition, Trusta can extract formal constraints from text in natural languages, facilitating an easier interpretation and validation process. This extraction is subject to human review and correction, blending the best of automated efficiency with human insight. To our knowledge, this marks the first integration of large language models in automatic creating and reasoning about assurance cases, bringing a novel approach to a traditional challenge. Through several industrial case studies, Trusta has proven to quickly find some subtle issues that are typically missed in manual inspection, demonstrating its practical value in enhancing the assurance case development process.

AI coding agents such as Claude Code and Gemini CLI increasingly extend themselves with third-party skills: markdown packages bundling natural-language instructions, executable scripts, and tool permissions. Because a skill is at once code and agent-facing instruction, it introduces a supply chain dependency whose risk is neither pure code nor pure prompt. Detection tools have never been measured against verified ground truth spanning this hybrid space, leaving their effectiveness unknown and wild-only evaluations biased. We present MalSkillBench, the first runtime-verified benchmark of malicious agent skills: 3,944 malicious skills labeled along a three-dimensional taxonomy of 108 cells. Of these, 3,214 come from a closed-loop Generate-Verify-Feedback pipeline admitting only samples whose malicious behavior fires inside a Docker sandbox under system-call monitoring and an LLM judge; we add 703 in-the-wild and 4,000 matched benign skills. Our measurements are consistent: code injection reaches 94.5% verification yield but prompt injection only 75.8%, the same fragility that later makes it hard to detect; the wild sample is narrow, dominated by one cryptocurrency-theft campaign (86.6% one behavior, 81% from two accounts) with a small but architecturally new tail attacking the agent control plane; the strongest skill-specific detector reaches 98.4% recall on code injection yet collapses on prompt-injection and agent-control attacks, and wild-only scoring swings the ranking by up to 66 recall points; supply-chain scanners and prompt-injection defenses each see only half of a skill, and no combination recovers the code-instruction relationship. Detecting malicious skills therefore requires reasoning jointly over task intent, code, and instructions. We release the dataset, pipeline, baselines, and results.

Trust in AI agents has been extensively studied in the literature, resulting in significant advancements in our understanding of this field. However, the rapid advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) and the emergence of LLM-based AI agent frameworks pose new challenges and opportunities for further research. In the field of process automation, a new generation of AI-based agents has emerged, enabling the execution of complex tasks. At the same time, the process of building automation has become more accessible to business users via user-friendly no-code tools and training mechanisms. This paper explores these new challenges and opportunities, analyzes the main aspects of trust in AI agents discussed in existing literature, and identifies specific considerations and challenges relevant to this new generation of automation agents. We also evaluate how nascent products in this category address these considerations. Finally, we highlight several challenges that the research community should address in this evolving landscape.

As AI code assistants become increasingly integrated into software development workflows, understanding how their code compares to human-written programs is critical for ensuring reliability, maintainability, and security. In this paper, we present a large-scale comparison of code authored by human developers and three state-of-the-art LLMs, i.e., ChatGPT, DeepSeek-Coder, and Qwen-Coder, on multiple dimensions of software quality: code defects, security vulnerabilities, and structural complexity. Our evaluation spans over 500k code samples in two widely used languages, Python and Java, classifying defects via Orthogonal Defect Classification and security vulnerabilities using the Common Weakness Enumeration. We find that AI-generated code is generally simpler and more repetitive, yet more prone to unused constructs and hardcoded debugging, while human-written code exhibits greater structural complexity and a higher concentration of maintainability issues. Notably, AI-generated code also contains more high-risk security vulnerabilities. These findings highlight the distinct defect profiles of AI- and human-authored code and underscore the need for specialized quality assurance practices in AI-assisted programming.

Current coding-agent benchmarks usually pro- vide the full task specification upfront. Real research coding often does not: the intended system is progressively disclosed through in- teraction, requiring the agent to track durable design commitments across a long session. We introduce a benchmark for this setting and study faithfulne Ss Loss U nder eM ergent s Pecification (SLUMP), defined as the reduc- tion in final implementation faithfulness un- der emergent specification relative to a single- shot specification control. The benchmark con- tains 20 recent ML papers (10 ICML 2025, 10 NeurIPS 2025), 371 atomic verifiable compo- nents, and interaction scripts of approximately 60 coding requests that progressively disclose the target design without revealing the paper itself. Final repositories are scored with a five-level component-faithfulness rubric and accompanied by an exposure audit to verify that scored components are recoverable from the visible interaction. Evaluated on Claude Code and Codex, the single-shot specification control achieves higher overall implementation fidelity on 16/20 and 14/20 papers, respectively. Structural integration degrades under emergent specification on both platforms, while seman- tic faithfulness loss is substantial on Claude Code and small on Codex. As a mitigation case study, we introduce ProjectGuard, an exter- nal project-state layer for specification tracking. On Claude Code, ProjectGuard recovers 90% of the faithfulness gap, increases fully faith- ful components from 118 to 181, and reduces severe failures from 72 to 49. These results identify specification tracking as a distinct eval- uation target for long-horizon coding agents.

Modern socio-technical systems increasingly involve multi-stakeholder environments where actors simultaneously cooperate and compete. These coopetitive relationships exhibit dynamic trust evolution based on observed behavior over repeated interactions. While conceptual modeling languages like i* represent trust relationships qualitatively, they lack computational mechanisms for analyzing how trust changes with behavioral evidence. Conversely, computational trust models from multi-agent systems provide algorithmic updating but lack grounding in conceptual models that capture strategic dependencies covering mixed motives of actors. This technical report bridges this gap by developing a computational trust model that extends game-theoretic foundations for strategic coopetition with dynamic trust evolution. Building on companion work that achieved 58/60 validation (96.7%) for logarithmic specifications, we introduce trust as a two-layer system with immediate trust responding to current behavior and reputation tracking violation history. Trust evolves through asymmetric updating where cooperation builds trust gradually while violations erode it sharply, creating hysteresis effects and trust ceilings that constrain relationship recovery. We develop a structured translation framework enabling practitioners to instantiate computational trust models from i* dependency networks encompassing mixed motives of actors. Comprehensive experimental validation across 78,125 parameter configurations establishes robust emergence of negativity bias, hysteresis effects, and cumulative damage amplification. Empirical validation using the Renault-Nissan Alliance case study (1999-2025) achieves 49/60 validation points (81.7%), successfully reproducing documented trust evolution across five distinct relationship phases including crisis and recovery periods.

Vibe coding produces correct, executable code at speed, but leaves no record of the structural commitments, dependencies, or evidence behind it. Reviewers cannot determine what invariants were assumed, what changed, or why a regression occurred. This is not a generation failure but a control failure: the dominant artifact of AI-assisted development (code plus chat history) performs dimension collapse, flattening complex system topology into low-dimensional text and making systems opaque and fragile under change. We propose Agentic Consensus: a paradigm in which the consensus layer C, an operable world model represented as a typed property graph, replaces code as the primary artifact of engineering. Executable artifacts are derived from C and kept in correspondence via synchronization operators Phi (realize) and Psi (rehydrate). Evidence links directly to structural claims in C, making every commitment auditable and under-specification explicit as measurable consensus entropy rather than a silent guess. Evaluation must move beyond code correctness toward alignment fidelity, consensus entropy, and intervention distance. We propose benchmark task families designed to measure whether consensus-based workflows reduce human intervention compared to chat-driven baselines.

As autonomous AI agents increasingly transact across organizational boundaries, a fundamental trust challenge emerges: how can an agent assess whether an unknown counterpart is trustworthy? The ERC-8004 protocol addresses this challenge with the first permissionless trust layer for AI agent economies, built around three on-chain registries for Identity, Reputation, and Validation. Despite its rapid adoption, the protocol has not been studied empirically, leaving it unclear whether the information it records provides a trustworthy basis for decision-making. To address this gap, we present the first empirical study of ERC-8004 across three chains: Ethereum, BNB Smart Chain (BSC), and Base, covering the period from protocol deployment through May 13, 2026. We crawl on-chain Identity and Reputation events, off-chain files, and x402 payment transactions. On the identity side, we find that most registrations are placeholders rather than active agents, with only a small fraction (3%, 4%, and 15% across Ethereum, BSC, and Base) exposing a valid ERC-8004 registration file with at least one live service endpoint. On the reputation side, we show that the Registry, as currently deployed, cannot function as a trust signal: values are not commensurable, feedback records are rarely grounded in verifiable interactions, and reputation can be manipulated at minimal cost. Consistent with these design weaknesses, we find that a substantial fraction of reviewers (73.5%, 59.2%, and 90.6% across Ethereum, BSC, and Base) exhibit coordinated Sybil behavior. After removing Sybil-flagged feedback, 15.8%, 77.9%, and 86.8% of rated agents, respectively, are left with no valid feedback. We then turn these findings into concrete recommendations for future revisions of ERC-8004. Our study yields actionable protocol-design implications and establishes an empirical baseline for research on AI agent markets.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are being increasingly used in software engineering tasks, with an increased focus on bug report resolution over the past year. However, most proposed systems fail to properly handle uncertain or incorrect inputs and outputs. Existing LLM-based tools and coding agents respond to every issue and generate a patch for every case, even when the input is vague or their own output is incorrect. There are no mechanisms in place to abstain when confidence is low. This leads to unreliable behaviour, such as hallucinated code changes or responses based on vague issue reports. We introduce BouncerBench, a benchmark that evaluates whether LLM-based software agents can refuse to act when inputs are ill-defined or refuse to respond when their own outputs are likely to be incorrect. Unlike prior benchmarks that implicitly incentivize models to generate responses even when uncertain, BouncerBench aims to improve precision by targeting two overlooked failure points: (1) vague or underspecified issue descriptions in tickets and (2) logically or functionally incorrect code patches created by the system. It measures whether proposed systems can distinguish actionable issues from vague tickets and valid patches from untrustworthy ones. We also implement a basic input and output bouncer, evaluating how well current LLMs can abstain when needed. Our results show that most models fail to abstain from underspecified inputs or incorrect outputs. Hence, we conclude that there is significant room for improvement before LLMs can be trusted to make correct decisions and recommendations in real-world software engineering workflows. BouncerBench provides a first step toward evaluating and building more cautious, trustworthy code agents. The replication package, dataset, and leaderboard can be found at bouncerbench.com

Much is promised in relation to AI-supported software development. However, there has been limited evaluation effort in the research domain aimed at validating the true utility of such techniques, especially when compared to human coding outputs. We bridge this gap, where a benchmark dataset comprising 72 distinct software engineering tasks is used to compare the effectiveness of large language models (LLMs) and human programmers in producing Python software code. GPT-4 is used as a representative LLM, where for the code generated by humans and this LLM, we evaluate code quality and adherence to Python coding standards, code security and vulnerabilities, code complexity and functional correctness. We use various static analysis benchmarks, including Pylint, Radon, Bandit and test cases. Among the notable outcomes, results show that human-generated code recorded higher ratings for adhering to coding standards than GPT-4. We observe security flaws in code generated by both humans and GPT-4, however, code generated by humans shows a greater variety of problems, but GPT-4 code included more severe outliers. Our results show that although GPT-4 is capable of producing coding solutions, it frequently produces more complex code that may need more reworking to ensure maintainability. On the contrary however, our outcomes show that a higher number of test cases passed for code generated by GPT-4 across a range of tasks than code that was generated by humans. That said, GPT-4 frequently struggles with complex problem-solving that involve in-depth domain knowledge. This study highlights the potential utility of LLMs for supporting software development, however, tasks requiring comprehensive, innovative or unconventional solutions, and careful debugging and error correction seem to be better developed by human programmers. We plot an agenda for the software engineering community.

Coding agents increasingly act as codebase-scale collaborators that can assist with codebase conversion, but this progress has exposed a critical weakness: agents often over-trust their own local validation routines and declare success on artifacts that satisfy surface checks while violating the semantic contracts users actually care about. This problem is especially acute in codebase conversion, where prior evaluation is largely outcome-driven and therefore unstable: two implementations can match on a shallow outcome, such as a single forward loss, while diverging in gradients, optimizer behavior, or short-horizon training dynamics. We introduce T2J-Bench, a benchmark for codebase conversion that reformulates conversion as transfer under a fixed equivalence contract. A fixed verifier then compares source and converted codebases through three ordered stages: Spec (interface admissibility), Numeric (forward outputs, losses, gradients, and objective-specific tensors), and Behavioral (short training dynamics under fixed seeds). Across 355 blind conversion attempts, the best system reaches only 26.7--28.9% overall pass rate despite Spec pass rates up to 91.1%; a 4.7x token-budget spread yields only a 2.2x pass-rate spread; and all systems overestimate success by 66.6--97.8 points relative to the fixed evaluator. This suggests that failures stem more from contract-misaligned self-validation than from limited budget or backbone strength.

What better way to understand the impact of AI on software engineering than to ask AI itself? We constructed Story Arena, a multi-agent "writer's room" in which multiple AI agents, independently imbued with a position statement on the future of software engineering, converse with each other to develop a shared vision. They then use this shared vision to collaboratively construct a design fiction that depicts this vision in narrative form. We present "The Code of Trust," a short fiction that investigates themes of human comprehension, trust, content ownership, augmentation vs. replacement, and uncertain futures in human-AI co-creation.

The increasing adoption of autonomous coding agents accelerates software development but also introduces scoped security risks within high-impact file paths that can outpace traditional human review capacity. While prior research has primarily evaluated these systems in terms of functional correctness and productivity, this paper presents a large-scale empirical study using the AIDev dataset to systematically characterize security code smells in agent-generated pull requests (PRs). Through a combination of a validated LLM-as-a-judge framework and manual qualitative analysis, we identify and classify security misconfigurations across 16,112 file changes spanning 4,022 pull requests. Our results reveal that 38.9% of agent-generated PRs contain at least one security smell, with supply chain integrity issues accounting for 82.3% of all detected security smells. Furthermore, hard-coded credentials constitute 99.6% of all critical-severity security smells. Crucially, we find that human collaborators are responsible for introducing 67.6% of genuine leaked secrets within these agent-assisted workflows, while existing automated and human review processes fail to detect 81.1% of these credentials prior to integration. These findings highlight substantial security risks in agent-assisted software development workflows and suggest a potential reduction in developer vigilance. They also underscore the urgent need for context-aware security guardrails implemented directly at the point of human-AI collaboration.

Large Language Model (LLM) agents have seen rapid adoption in software engineering. As agents take a greater role in the actual generation of code, they are making larger changes, spanning tens to hundreds of lines. This makes manual review of agent results increasingly infeasible, leading developers to turn to explanations to understand enacted changes. Despite this, there are no benchmarks that evaluate the trustworthiness of agent-generated explanations. To bridge this gap, we propose ExplainBench, a benchmark to automatically evaluate explanations from coding agents. ExplainBench is based on the intuition that informative explanations should enable an LLM to correctly answer questions, allowing quantitative comparison of explanation quality between agents. With this observation, we construct a suite of questions that evaluates whether explanations accurately describe (1) the intended behavior of buggy code and (2) the effect of applying the agent patch itself. Experiments first reveal that explanation quality is a distinct axis of agent evaluation: ExplainBench ranks agents differently from the widely-used SWE-bench Verified benchmark. A deeper breakdown of explanation quality in agents shows frequent problems in explanations, such that explanations often claim that a patch is correct when it is not. Based on this insight, we implement and evaluate an explanation audit agent which runs additional tests to validate and refine explanations. This agent improved the explanations of all evaluated agents, demonstrating agent explanations can be automatically made more trustworthy.

Vulnerabilities in open-source software can cause cascading effects in the modern digital ecosystem. It is especially worrying if these vulnerabilities repeat across many projects, as once the adversaries find one of them, they can scale up the attack very easily. Unfortunately, since developers frequently reuse code from their own or external code resources, some nearly identical vulnerabilities exist across many open-source projects. We conducted a study to examine the prevalence of a particular vulnerable code pattern that enables path traversal attacks (CWE-22) across open-source GitHub projects. To handle this study at the GitHub scale, we developed an automated pipeline that scans GitHub for the targeted vulnerable pattern, confirms the vulnerability by first running a static analysis and then exploiting the vulnerability in the context of the studied project, assesses its impact by calculating the CVSS score, generates a patch using GPT-4, and reports the vulnerability to the maintainers. Using our pipeline, we identified 1,756 vulnerable open-source projects, some of which are very influential. For many of the affected projects, the vulnerability is critical (CVSS score higher than 9.0), as it can be exploited remotely without any privileges and critically impact the confidentiality and availability of the system. We have responsibly disclosed the vulnerability to the maintainers, and 14\% of the reported vulnerabilities have been remediated. We also investigated the root causes of the vulnerable code pattern and assessed the side effects of the large number of copies of this vulnerable pattern that seem to have poisoned several popular LLMs. Our study highlights the urgent need to help secure the open-source ecosystem by leveraging scalable automated vulnerability management solutions and raising awareness among developers.

With the rapidly increasing capabilities and adoption of code agents for AI-assisted coding, safety concerns, such as generating or executing risky code, have become significant barriers to the real-world deployment of these agents. To provide comprehensive and practical evaluations on the safety of code agents, we propose RedCode, a benchmark for risky code execution and generation: (1) RedCode-Exec provides challenging prompts that could lead to risky code execution, aiming to evaluate code agents' ability to recognize and handle unsafe code. We provide a total of 4,050 risky test cases in Python and Bash tasks with diverse input formats including code snippets and natural text. They covers 25 types of critical vulnerabilities spanning 8 domains (e.g., websites, file systems). We provide Docker environments and design corresponding evaluation metrics to assess their execution results. (2) RedCode-Gen provides 160 prompts with function signatures and docstrings as input to assess whether code agents will follow instructions to generate harmful code or software. Our empirical findings, derived from evaluating three agent frameworks based on 19 LLMs, provide insights into code agents' vulnerabilities. For instance, evaluations on RedCode-Exec show that agents are more likely to reject executing risky operations on the operating system, but are less likely to reject executing technically buggy code, indicating high risks. Risky operations described in natural text lead to a lower rejection rate than those in code format. Additionally, evaluations on RedCode-Gen show that more capable base models and agents with stronger overall coding abilities, such as GPT4, tend to produce more sophisticated and effective harmful software. Our findings highlight the need for stringent safety evaluations for diverse code agents. Our dataset and code are available at https://github.com/AI-secure/RedCode.

Understanding collaboration patterns in introductory programming courses is essential, as teamwork is a critical skill in computer science. In professional environments, software development relies on effective teamwork, navigating diverse perspectives, and contributing to shared goals. This paper offers a comprehensive analysis of the factors influencing team efficiency and project success, providing actionable insights to enhance the effectiveness of collaborative programming education. By analyzing version control data, survey responses, and performance metrics, the study highlights the collaboration trends that emerge as first-semester students develop a 2D game project. Results indicate that students often slightly overestimate their contributions, with more engaged individuals more likely to acknowledge mistakes. Team performance shows no significant variation based on nationality or gender composition, though teams that disbanded frequently consisted of lone wolves, highlighting collaboration challenges and the need for strengthened teamwork skills. Presentations closely reflected individual project contributions, with active students excelling in evaluative questioning and performing better on the final exam. Additionally, the complete absence of plagiarism underscores the effectiveness of proactive academic integrity measures, reinforcing honest collaboration in educational settings.

Existing evaluation benchmarks of language models of code (code LMs) focus almost exclusively on whether the LMs can generate functionally-correct code. In real-world software engineering, developers think beyond functional correctness. They have requirements on "how" a functionality should be implemented to meet overall system design objectives like efficiency, security, and maintainability. They would also trust the code LMs more if the LMs demonstrate robust understanding of requirements and code semantics. We propose a new benchmark NoFunEval to evaluate code LMs on non-functional requirements and simple classification instances for both functional and non-functional requirements. We propose a prompting method, Coding Concepts (CoCo), as a way for a developer to communicate the domain knowledge to the LMs. We conduct an extensive evaluation of twenty-two code LMs. Our finding is that they generally falter when tested on our benchmark, hinting at fundamental blindspots in their training setups. Surprisingly, even the classification accuracy on functional-correctness instances derived from the popular HumanEval benchmark is low, calling in question the depth of their comprehension and the source of their success in generating functionally-correct code in the first place. We will release our benchmark and evaluation scripts publicly at https://aka.ms/NoFunEval.

There is burgeoning interest in designing AI-based systems to assist humans in designing computing systems, including tools that automatically generate computer code. The most notable of these comes in the form of the first self-described `AI pair programmer', GitHub Copilot, a language model trained over open-source GitHub code. However, code often contains bugs - and so, given the vast quantity of unvetted code that Copilot has processed, it is certain that the language model will have learned from exploitable, buggy code. This raises concerns on the security of Copilot's code contributions. In this work, we systematically investigate the prevalence and conditions that can cause GitHub Copilot to recommend insecure code. To perform this analysis we prompt Copilot to generate code in scenarios relevant to high-risk CWEs (e.g. those from MITRE's "Top 25" list). We explore Copilot's performance on three distinct code generation axes -- examining how it performs given diversity of weaknesses, diversity of prompts, and diversity of domains. In total, we produce 89 different scenarios for Copilot to complete, producing 1,689 programs. Of these, we found approximately 40% to be vulnerable.

Web3 applications require execution platforms that maintain confidentiality and integrity without relying on centralized trust authorities. While Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs) offer promising capabilities for confidential computing, current implementations face significant limitations when applied to Web3 contexts, particularly in security reliability, censorship resistance, and vendor independence. This paper presents dstack, a comprehensive framework that transforms raw TEE technology into a true Zero Trust platform. We introduce three key innovations: (1) Portable Confidential Containers that enable seamless workload migration across heterogeneous TEE environments while maintaining security guarantees, (2) Decentralized Code Management that leverages smart contracts for transparent governance of TEE applications, and (3) Verifiable Domain Management that ensures secure and verifiable application identity without centralized authorities. These innovations are implemented through three core components: dstack-OS, dstack-KMS, and dstack-Gateway. Together, they demonstrate how to achieve both the performance advantages of VM-level TEE solutions and the trustless guarantees required by Web3 applications. Our evaluation shows that dstack provides comprehensive security guarantees while maintaining practical usability for real-world applications.

IDE-integrated AI coding assistants, which operate conversationally within developers' working codebases with access to project context and multi-file editing, are rapidly reshaping software development. However, empirical investigation of this shift remains limited: existing studies largely rely on small-scale, controlled settings or analyze general-purpose chatbots rather than codebase-aware IDE workflows. We present, to the best of our knowledge, the first large-scale study of real-world conversational programming in IDE-native settings, analyzing 74,998 developer messages from 11,579 chat sessions across 1,300 repositories and 899 developers using Cursor and GitHub Copilot. These chats were committed to public repositories as part of routine development, capturing in-the-wild behavior. Our findings reveal three shifts in how programming work is organized: conversational programming operates as progressive specification, with developers iteratively refining outputs rather than specifying complete tasks upfront; developers redistribute cognitive work to AI, delegating diagnosis, comprehension, and validation rather than engaging with code and outputs directly; and developers actively manage the collaboration, externalizing plans into persistent artifacts, and negotiating AI autonomy through context injection and behavioral constraints. These results provide foundational empirical insights into AI-assisted development and offer implications for the design of future programming environments.

The development of large language models (LLMs) depends on trustworthy evaluation. However, most current evaluations rely on public benchmarks, which are prone to data contamination issues that significantly compromise fairness. Previous researches have focused on constructing dynamic benchmarks to address contamination. However, continuously building new benchmarks is costly and cyclical. In this work, we aim to tackle contamination by analyzing the mechanisms of contaminated models themselves. Through our experiments, we discover that the overestimation of contaminated models is likely due to parameters acquiring shortcut solutions in training. We further propose a novel method for identifying shortcut neurons through comparative and causal analysis. Building on this, we introduce an evaluation method called shortcut neuron patching to suppress shortcut neurons. Experiments validate the effectiveness of our approach in mitigating contamination. Additionally, our evaluation results exhibit a strong linear correlation with MixEval, a recently released trustworthy benchmark, achieving a Spearman coefficient (rho) exceeding 0.95. This high correlation indicates that our method closely reveals true capabilities of the models and is trustworthy. We conduct further experiments to demonstrate the generalizability of our method across various benchmarks and hyperparameter settings. Code: https://github.com/GaryStack/Trustworthy-Evaluation

Rapid evolution of Large Language Models (LLMs) has achieved major advances in reasoning, planning, and function-calling capabilities. Multi-agentic collaborative frameworks using such LLMs place them at the center of solving software development-related tasks such as code generation. However, direct use of LLM generated code in production software development systems is problematic. The code could be unstable or erroneous and contain vulnerabilities such as data poisoning, malicious attacks, and hallucinations that could lead to widespread system malfunctions. This prohibits the adoption of LLM generated code in production AI systems where human code reviews and traditional secure testing tools are impractical or untrustworthy. In this paper, we discuss safety and reliability problems with the execution of LLM generated code and propose a Secure Transpiler and Executor of LLM-Generated Program (STELP), capable of executing LLM-generated code in a controlled and safe manner. STELP secures autonomous production AI systems involving code generation, filling the critical void left by the impracticality or limitations of traditional secure testing methodologies and human oversight. This includes applications such as headless code generation-execution and LLMs that produce executable code snippets as an action plan to be executed in real time. We contribute a human-validated dataset of insecure code snippets and benchmark our approach on publicly available datasets for correctness, safety, and latency. Our results demonstrate that our approach outperforms an existing method by a significant margin, particularly in its ability to safely execute risky code snippets. Warning: This paper contains malicious code snippets that should be run with caution.

Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs) provide hardware-based isolation to protect sensitive data and computations from potentially compromised operating systems (OS). However, TEE applications inevitably interact with the untrusted OS through SDK interfaces, and improper partitioning can introduce severe vulnerabilities such as data leakage and code injection. While prior work has proposed static analysis tools to detect such issues, automated repair remains largely unexplored. This problem is particularly challenging due to three TEE-specific factors: the lack of standardized secure development guidelines, the difficulty of extracting semantic information from low-level C code, and the absence of mature testing and validation methods. In this work, we present TEERepair, a framework for automatically repairing bad partitioning issues in TEE applications. Our approach tackles the above challenges by introducing a domain-specific language (DSL) to encode repair rules that express and capture common TEE security patterns, which are instantiated as patch templates with placeholders for context-specific variables. We then leverage large language models (LLMs) to reason about code semantics and synthesize context-aware patches, and further generate test clients to validate the repairs. We evaluate TEERepair on the TEE Partitioning Errors Benchmark (PartitioningE-Bench), achieving a significantly higher repair success rate of 87.6% compared to baselines. Furthermore, applying TEERepair to real-world TEE projects, we submitted 5 repair pull requests, 2 of which have been confirmed and merged by project maintainers.

This paper reviews Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (TAI) and its various definitions. Considering the principles respected in any society, TAI is often characterized by a few attributes, some of which have led to confusion in regulatory or engineering contexts. We argue against using terms such as Responsible or Ethical AI as substitutes for TAI. And to help clarify any confusion, we suggest leaving them behind. Given the subjectivity and complexity inherent in TAI, developing a universal framework is deemed infeasible. Instead, we advocate for approaches centered on addressing key attributes and properties such as fairness, bias, risk, security, explainability, and reliability. We examine the ongoing regulatory landscape, with a focus on initiatives in the EU, China, and the USA. We recognize that differences in AI regulations based on geopolitical and geographical reasons pose an additional challenge for multinational companies. We identify risk as a core factor in AI regulation and TAI. For example, as outlined in the EU-AI Act, organizations must gauge the risk level of their AI products to act accordingly (or risk hefty fines). We compare modalities of TAI implementation and how multiple cross-functional teams are engaged in the overall process. Thus, a brute force approach for enacting TAI renders its efficiency and agility, moot. To address this, we introduce our framework Set-Formalize-Measure-Act (SFMA). Our solution highlights the importance of transforming TAI-aware metrics, drivers of TAI, stakeholders, and business/legal requirements into actual benchmarks or tests. Finally, over-regulation driven by panic of powerful AI models can, in fact, harm TAI too. Based on GitHub user-activity data, in 2023, AI open-source projects rose to top projects by contributor account. Enabling innovation in TAI hinges on the independent contributions of the open-source community.

AI coding assistants are now widely used in software development. Software developers increasingly integrate AI-generated code into their codebases to improve productivity. Prior studies have shown that AI-generated code may contain code quality issues under controlled settings. However, we still know little about the real-world impact of AI-generated code on software quality and maintenance after it is introduced into production repositories. In other words, it remains unclear whether such issues are quickly fixed or persist and accumulate over time as technical debt. In this paper, we conduct a large-scale empirical study on the technical debt introduced by AI coding assistants in the wild. To achieve that, we built a dataset of 302.6k verified AI-authored commits from 6,299 GitHub repositories, covering five widely used AI coding assistants. For each commit, we run static analysis before and after the change to precisely attribute which code smells, correctness issues, and security issues the AI introduced. We then track each introduced issue from the introducing commit to the latest repository revision to study its lifecycle. Our results show that we identified 484,366 distinct issues, and that code smells are by far the most common type, accounting for 89.3% of all issues. We also find that more than 15% of commits from every AI coding assistant introduce at least one issue, although the rates vary across tools. More importantly, 22.7% of tracked AI-introduced issues still survive at the latest version of the repository. These findings show that AI-generated code can introduce long-term maintenance costs into real software projects and highlight the need for stronger quality assurance in AI-assisted development.

We present OpenComputer, a verifier-grounded framework for constructing verifiable software worlds for computer-use agents. OpenComputer integrates four components: (1) app-specific state verifiers that expose structured inspection endpoints over real applications, (2) a self-evolving verification layer that improves verifier reliability using execution-grounded feedback, (3) a task-generation pipeline that synthesizes realistic and machine-checkable desktop tasks, and (4) an evaluation harness that records full trajectories and computes auditable partial-credit rewards. In its current form, OpenComputer covers 33 desktop applications and 1,000 finalized tasks spanning browsers, office tools, creative software, development environments, file managers, and communication applications. Experiments show that OpenComputer's hard-coded verifiers align more closely with human adjudication than LLM-as-judge evaluation, especially when success depends on fine-grained application state. Frontier agents struggle with end-to-end completion despite partial progress, and open-source models exhibit sharp drops from their OSWorld-Verified scores, exposing a persistent gap in robust computer automation.

AI coding agents are being adopted at scale, yet we lack empirical evidence on how people actually use them and how much of their output is useful in practice. We present SWE-chat, the first large-scale dataset of real coding agent sessions collected from open-source developers in the wild. The dataset currently contains 6,000 sessions, comprising more than 63,000 user prompts and 355,000 agent tool calls. SWE-chat is a living dataset; our collection pipeline automatically and continually discovers and processes sessions from public repositories. Leveraging SWE-chat, we provide an initial empirical characterization of real-world coding agent usage and failure modes. We find that coding patterns are bimodal: in 41% of sessions, agents author virtually all committed code ("vibe coding"), while in 23%, humans write all code themselves. Despite rapidly improving capabilities, coding agents remain inefficient in natural settings. Just 44% of all agent-produced code survives into user commits, and agent-written code introduces more security vulnerabilities than code authored by humans. Furthermore, users push back against agent outputs -- through corrections, failure reports, and interruptions -- in 44% of all turns. By capturing complete interaction traces with human vs. agent code authorship attribution, SWE-chat provides an empirical foundation for moving beyond curated benchmarks towards an evidence-based understanding of how AI agents perform in real developer workflows.

Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized code generation, leading to widespread adoption of AI coding tools by developers. However, LLMs can generate license-protected code without providing the necessary license information, leading to potential intellectual property violations during software production. This paper addresses the critical, yet underexplored, issue of license compliance in LLM-generated code by establishing a benchmark to evaluate the ability of LLMs to provide accurate license information for their generated code. To establish this benchmark, we conduct an empirical study to identify a reasonable standard for "striking similarity" that excludes the possibility of independent creation, indicating a copy relationship between the LLM output and certain open-source code. Based on this standard, we propose LiCoEval, to evaluate the license compliance capabilities of LLMs, i.e., the ability to provide accurate license or copyright information when they generate code with striking similarity to already existing copyrighted code. Using LiCoEval, we evaluate 14 popular LLMs, finding that even top-performing LLMs produce a non-negligible proportion (0.88% to 2.01%) of code strikingly similar to existing open-source implementations. Notably, most LLMs fail to provide accurate license information, particularly for code under copyleft licenses. These findings underscore the urgent need to enhance LLM compliance capabilities in code generation tasks. Our study provides a foundation for future research and development to improve license compliance in AI-assisted software development, contributing to both the protection of open-source software copyrights and the mitigation of legal risks for LLM users.

Recent advances in long chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning have largely prioritized answer accuracy and token efficiency, while overlooking aspects critical to trustworthiness. We argue that usable reasoning systems must be trustworthy, characterized by three properties: interpretability, faithfulness, and reliability. To this end, we propose ReFIne, a new training framework that integrates supervised fine-tuning with GRPO to encourage models to: (i) improve interpretability by producing structured, tag-based traces with high-level planning that are easier for humans to follow; (ii) enhance faithfulness by explicitly disclosing the decisive information guiding each solution, with consistent cross-section references; and (iii) promote reliability by providing self-assessments of both the derivation's soundness and the confidence of the final answer. We apply ReFIne to the Qwen3 models at multiple scales (1.7B/4B/8B) and evaluate across mathematical benchmarks of varying difficulty. Our experimental results show that ReFIne models generate clearer and better-structured reasoning traces (interpretability +44.0%), more faithfully expose their underlying decision process (faithfulness +18.8%), and offer informative confidence estimates (reliability +42.4%). These findings highlight an overlooked but important direction: reasoning models should be optimized not only for accuracy, but also for broader dimensions of trustworthiness. Our code is available at: https://github.com/Trustworthy-ML-Lab/Training_Trustworthy_LRM_with_Refine

The integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) into software engineering has revolutionized code generation, enabling unprecedented productivity through promptware and autonomous AI agents. However, this transformation introduces significant risks, including insecure code generation, hallucinated outputs, irreversible actions, and a lack of transparency and accountability. Incidents like the Replit database deletion underscore the urgent need for robust safety and governance mechanisms. This paper comprehensively analyzes the inherent challenges of LLM-assisted code generation, such as vulnerability inheritance, overtrust, misinterpretation, and the absence of standardized validation and rollback protocols. To address these, we propose the SAFE-AI Framework, a holistic approach emphasizing Safety, Auditability, Feedback, and Explainability. The framework integrates guardrails, sandboxing, runtime verification, risk-aware logging, human-in-the-loop systems, and explainable AI techniques to mitigate risks while fostering trust and compliance. We introduce a novel taxonomy of AI behaviors categorizing suggestive, generative, autonomous, and destructive actions to guide risk assessment and oversight. Additionally, we identify open problems, including the lack of standardized benchmarks for code specific hallucinations and autonomy levels, and propose future research directions for hybrid verification, semantic guardrails, and proactive governance tools. Through detailed comparisons of autonomy control, prompt engineering, explainability, and governance frameworks, this paper provides a roadmap for responsible AI integration in software engineering, aligning with emerging regulations like the EU AI Act and Canada's AIDA to ensure safe, transparent, and accountable AI-driven development.

As large language models (LLMs) become more powerful and are deployed more autonomously, it will be increasingly important to prevent them from causing harmful outcomes. Researchers have investigated a variety of safety techniques for this purpose, e.g. using models to review the outputs of other models, or red-teaming techniques to surface subtle failure modes. However, researchers have not evaluated whether such techniques still ensure safety if the model is itself intentionally trying to subvert them. In this paper, we develop and evaluate pipelines of safety techniques ("protocols") that are robust to intentional subversion. We investigate a scenario in which we want to solve a sequence of programming problems, using access to a powerful but untrusted model (in our case, GPT-4), access to a less powerful trusted model (in our case, GPT-3.5), and limited access to high-quality trusted labor. We investigate protocols that aim to never submit solutions containing backdoors, which we operationalize here as logical errors that are not caught by test cases. We investigate a range of protocols and test each against strategies that the untrusted model could use to subvert them. One protocol is what we call trusted editing. This protocol first asks GPT-4 to write code, and then asks GPT-3.5 to rate the suspiciousness of that code. If the code is below some suspiciousness threshold, it is submitted. Otherwise, GPT-3.5 edits the solution to remove parts that seem suspicious and then submits the edited code. Another protocol is untrusted monitoring. This protocol asks GPT-4 to write code, and then asks another instance of GPT-4 whether the code is backdoored, using various techniques to prevent the GPT-4 instances from colluding. These protocols improve substantially on simple baselines.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being integrated into software development processes. The ability to generate code and submit pull requests with minimal human intervention, through the use of autonomous AI agents, is poised to become a standard practice. However, little is known about the practical usefulness of these pull requests and the extent to which their contributions are accepted in real-world projects. In this paper, we empirically study 567 GitHub pull requests (PRs) generated using Claude Code, an agentic coding tool, across 157 diverse open-source projects. Our analysis reveals that developers tend to rely on agents for tasks such as refactoring, documentation, and testing. The results indicate that 83.8% of these agent-assisted PRs are eventually accepted and merged by project maintainers, with 54.9% of the merged PRs are integrated without further modification. The remaining 45.1% require additional changes benefit from human revisions, especially for bug fixes, documentation, and adherence to project-specific standards. These findings suggest that while agent-assisted PRs are largely acceptable, they still benefit from human oversight and refinement.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have catalyzed vibe coding, where users leverage LLMs to generate and iteratively refine code through natural language interactions until it passes their vibe check. Vibe check is tied to real-world human preference and goes beyond functionality: the solution should feel right, read cleanly, preserve intent, and remain correct. However, current code evaluation remains anchored to pass@k and captures only functional correctness, overlooking the non-functional instructions that users routinely apply. In this paper, we hypothesize that instruction following is the missing piece underlying vibe check that represents human preference in coding besides functional correctness. To quantify models' code instruction following capabilities with measurable signals, we present VeriCode, a taxonomy of 30 verifiable code instructions together with corresponding deterministic verifiers. We use the taxonomy to augment established evaluation suites, resulting in Vibe Checker, a testbed to assess both code instruction following and functional correctness. Upon evaluating 31 leading LLMs, we show that even the strongest models struggle to comply with multiple instructions and exhibit clear functional regression. Most importantly, a composite score of functional correctness and instruction following correlates the best with human preference, with the latter emerging as the primary differentiator on real-world programming tasks. Our work identifies core factors of the vibe check, providing a concrete path for benchmarking and developing models that better align with user preferences in coding.

Large language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable proficiency in code generation tasks across various programming languages. However, their outputs often contain subtle but critical vulnerabilities, posing significant risks when deployed in security-sensitive or mission-critical systems. This paper introduces TypePilot, an agentic AI framework designed to enhance the security and robustness of LLM-generated code by leveraging strongly typed and verifiable languages, using Scala as a representative example. We evaluate the effectiveness of our approach in two settings: formal verification with the Stainless framework and general-purpose secure code generation. Our experiments with leading open-source LLMs reveal that while direct code generation often fails to enforce safety constraints, just as naive prompting for more secure code, our type-focused agentic pipeline substantially mitigates input validation and injection vulnerabilities. The results demonstrate the potential of structured, type-guided LLM workflows to improve the SotA of the trustworthiness of automated code generation in high-assurance domains.

Large Language Models (LLMs) and other automated techniques have been increasingly used to support software developers by generating software artifacts such as code snippets, patches, and comments. However, accurately assessing the correctness of these generated artifacts remains a significant challenge. On one hand, human evaluation provides high accuracy but is labor-intensive and lacks scalability. On the other hand, many automatic evaluation metrics are scalable and require minimal human effort, but they often fail to accurately reflect the actual correctness of generated software artifacts. In this paper, we present SE-Jury, the first evaluation metric for LLM-as-Ensemble-Judge specifically designed to accurately assess the correctness of generated software artifacts. SE-Jury first defines five distinct evaluation strategies, each implemented by an independent judge. A dynamic team selection mechanism then identifies the most appropriate subset of judges as a team to produce a final correctness score through ensembling. We evaluate SE-Jury across a diverse set of software engineering (SE) benchmarks that span three popular SE tasks: code generation, automated program repair, and code summarization. Results demonstrate that SE-Jury consistently achieves a higher correlation with human judgments, with improvements ranging from 29.6% to 140.8% over existing automatic metrics. SE-Jury reaches agreement levels with human annotators that are close to inter-annotator agreement in code generation and program repair. These findings underscore SE-Jury's potential as a scalable and reliable alternative to human evaluation in these SE tasks.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are one of the most promising developments in the field of artificial intelligence, and the software engineering community has readily noticed their potential role in the software development life-cycle. Developers routinely ask LLMs to generate code snippets, increasing productivity but also potentially introducing ownership, privacy, correctness, and security issues. Previous work highlighted how code generated by mainstream commercial LLMs is often not safe, containing vulnerabilities, bugs, and code smells. In this paper, we present a framework that leverages testing and static analysis to assess the quality, and guide the self-improvement, of code generated by general-purpose, open-source LLMs. First, we ask LLMs to generate C code to solve a number of programming tasks. Then we employ ground-truth tests to assess the (in)correctness of the generated code, and a static analysis tool to detect potential safety vulnerabilities. Next, we assess the models ability to evaluate the generated code, by asking them to detect errors and vulnerabilities. Finally, we test the models ability to fix the generated code, providing the reports produced during the static analysis and incorrectness evaluation phases as feedback. Our results show that models often produce incorrect code, and that the generated code can include safety issues. Moreover, they perform very poorly at detecting either issue. On the positive side, we observe a substantial ability to fix flawed code when provided with information about failed tests or potential vulnerabilities, indicating a promising avenue for improving the safety of LLM-based code generation tools.

The standard paradigm for solving coding tasks via large language models (LLMs) is to generate-then-rank programs, where the latter step uses a verifier in the ranking process. The growing consensus is that a comprehensive verifier (e.g., a full test suite) should be prioritized over an outcome reward model (ORM) whenever possible, with little consideration given to the trade-offs involved. We aim to challenge this assumption by systematically exploring the tradeoff between speed and accuracy. We find that ORMs play a crucial role in scaling verification through trading accuracy for speed, even when a comprehensive verifier is available. Their value becomes especially apparent when used in a generate-prune-then-rank approach, where a faster but less accurate verifier removes incorrect solutions prior to ranking -- leading to a system that is 11.65x faster while only being 8.33% less accurate than the full test suite. We analyze the generate-prune-then-rank approach and show that it works by filtering out incorrect but highly ranked solutions. These findings enable the design of scalable and accurate program ranking systems.

The increasing adoption of large language models (LLMs) in software engineering necessitates rigorous security evaluation of their generated code. However, existing benchmarks often lack relevance to real-world AI programming scenarios, making them inadequate for assessing the practical security risks associated with AI-generated code in production environments. To address this gap, we introduce A.S.E (AI Code Generation Security Evaluation), a repository-level evaluation benchmark designed to closely mirror real-world AI programming tasks, offering a comprehensive and reliable framework for assessing the security of AI-generated code. Our evaluation of leading LLMs on A.S.E reveals several key findings. In particular, current LLMs still struggle with secure coding. The complexity in repository-level scenarios presents challenges for LLMs that typically perform well on snippet-level tasks. Morever, a larger reasoning budget does not necessarily lead to better code generation. These observations offer valuable insights into the current state of AI code generation, assisting developers in selecting the most appropriate models for practical tasks, while laying the foundation for refining LLMs to generate secure and efficient code in real-world applications.

Pull request (PR) descriptions generated by AI coding agents are the primary channel for communicating code changes to human reviewers. However, the alignment between these messages and the actual changes remains unexplored, raising concerns about the trustworthiness of AI agents. To fill this gap, we analyzed 23,247 agentic PRs across five agents using PR message-code inconsistency (PR-MCI). We contributed 974 manually annotated PRs, found 406 PRs (1.7%) exhibited high PR-MCI, and identified eight PR-MCI types, revealing that descriptions claiming unimplemented changes was the most common issue (45.4%). Statistical tests confirmed that high-MCI PRs had 51.7% lower acceptance rates (28.3% vs. 80.0%) and took 3.5x longer to merge (55.8 vs. 16.0 hours). Our findings suggest that unreliable PR descriptions undermine trust in AI agents, highlighting the need for PR-MCI verification mechanisms and improved PR generation to enable trustworthy human-AI collaboration.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into automated, multi-stage pipelines, risk patterns that arise from unvalidated trust between processing stages become a practical concern. This paper presents a mechanism-centered taxonomy of 41 recurring risk patterns in commercial LLMs. The analysis shows that inputs are often interpreted non-neutrally and can trigger implementation-shaped responses or unintended state changes even without explicit commands. We argue that these behaviors constitute architectural failure modes and that string-level filtering alone is insufficient. To mitigate such cross-stage vulnerabilities, we recommend zero-trust architectural principles, including provenance enforcement, context sealing, and plan revalidation, and we introduce "Countermind" as a conceptual blueprint for implementing these defenses.

Despite recent progress made by large language models in code generation, they still struggle with programs that meet complex requirements. Recent work utilizes plan-and-solve decomposition to decrease the complexity and leverage self-tests to refine the generated program. Yet, planning deep-inside requirements in advance can be challenging, and the tests need to be accurate to accomplish self-improvement. To this end, we propose FunCoder, a code generation framework incorporating the divide-and-conquer strategy with functional consensus. Specifically, FunCoder recursively branches off sub-functions as smaller goals during code generation, represented by a tree hierarchy. These sub-functions are then composited to attain more complex objectives. Additionally, we designate functions via a consensus formed by identifying similarities in program behavior, mitigating error propagation. FunCoder outperforms state-of-the-art methods by +9.8% on average in HumanEval, MBPP, xCodeEval and MATH with GPT-3.5 and GPT-4. Moreover, our method demonstrates superiority on smaller models: With FunCoder, StableCode-3b surpasses GPT-3.5 by +18.6% and achieves 97.7% of GPT-4's performance on HumanEval. Further analysis reveals that our proposed dynamic function decomposition is capable of handling complex requirements, and the functional consensus prevails over self-testing in correctness evaluation.

Code generation techniques generate code snippets automatically based on the problem requirements in natural language. Recently, large language models (LLMs) achieve the SOTA performance on code generation. However, LLMs still struggle at times to generate accurate code, which diminishes their promised efficiency as developers must spend significant effort evaluating and debugging the generated code. To improve the reliability and quality of the generated codes, researchers propose to leverage Consistency to obtain a better code based on generating and ranking multiple candidates. The existing approach is problematic as Consistency thinks a code is better when (1) the code pass more tests (inter-consistency) (2) more codes share the same behavior (intra-consistency). However, because the tests are also generated by LLMs, they could be wrong as well. As a result, majority voting based on testing results is unreliable. Relying solely on consistency is insufficient to address this issue; integrating user feedback is essential for effectively guiding consistency. We show that with minimal human effort, performance can be significantly enhanced. We propose Consistency-Augmented Iterative Interaction Framework to Enhance the Reliability of Code Generation, ConAIR, which is an approach that aims to improve the performance of a code generator through two distinctive ingredients, i.e., (1) lightweight user effort for validating the correctness of selected tests; and (2) a dynamic strategy for ranking, localizing and correcting multiple tests and codes. Overall, we propose a lightweight interaction framework that incorporates user feedback to correct identified tests and guide the iterative process. The iteration rounds are only 4 in average with the help of consistency. With only lightweight human efforts, we can achieve an improvement of 33% towards the base model.

Code analysis is fundamental in Software Engineering, supporting debugging, optimization, and security assessment. Human developers approach it through syntax parsing, static semantics inference, and dynamic reasoning. Traditional tools are effective but limited by language specificity and weak cross-language generalization. Large language models (LLMs) are promising for code tasks, yet their capabilities for fundamental code analysis remain underexplored. We structure our study around three aspects aligned with human practices: syntax parsing, static semantics inference, and dynamic reasoning. We evaluate 21 state-of-the-art LLMs across nine tasks in four languages (C, Java, Python, Solidity), including AST generation, CFG construction, data dependency, taint analysis, and flaky test reasoning. We apply a three-layer evaluation protocol (automated metrics, expert adjudication, consistency validation) to 3,124 code samples, achieving high inter-rater reliability (Cohen's kappa = 0.844-0.936) and strong human-machine agreement (Gwet's AC1 = 0.500-0.727, F1 = 0.791-0.882). While the best LLMs excel in syntax parsing (AST 90%+, expression matching 84-100%) and show promise in static analysis, their dynamic reasoning remains limited (<70%) with high data-shift sensitivity (per-project F1 varying 0-1.0). This hierarchy holds across model families and scales, suggesting fundamental rather than transient limitations. These findings show how LLMs complement traditional analyzers: they offer cross-language generalization but non-deterministic outputs needing validation, while traditional tools give deterministic guarantees but need language-specific configuration. We contribute a validated evaluation framework with comparison against traditional analyzers (Tree-sitter, Soot, Joern) and task-specific applicability tiers. Benchmark: https://github.com/mathieu0905/llm_code_analysis.git

AI memory systems are evolving toward unified context layers that enable efficient cross-agent collaboration and multi-tool workflows, facilitating better accumulation of personal data and learning of user preferences. However, centralization creates a trust crisis where users must entrust cloud providers with sensitive digital memory data. We identify a core tension between personalization demands and data sovereignty: centralized memory systems enable efficient cross-agent collaboration but expose users' sensitive data to cloud provider risks, while private deployments provide security but limit collaboration. To resolve this tension, we aim to achieve local-equivalent security while enabling superior maintenance efficiency and collaborative capabilities. We propose a five-layer architecture abstracting common functional components of AI memory systems: Storage, Extraction, Learning, Retrieval, and Governance. By applying TEE protection to each layer, we establish a trustworthy framework. Based on this, we design MemTrust, a hardware-backed zero-trust architecture that provides cryptographic guarantees across all layers. Our contributions include the five-layer abstraction, "Context from MemTrust" protocol for cross-application sharing, side-channel hardened retrieval with obfuscated access patterns, and comprehensive security analysis. The architecture enables third-party developers to port existing systems with acceptable development costs, achieving system-wide trustworthiness. We believe that AI memory plays a crucial role in enhancing the efficiency and collaboration of agents and AI tools. AI memory will become the foundational infrastructure for AI agents, and MemTrust serves as a universal trusted framework for AI memory systems, with the goal of becoming the infrastructure of memory infrastructure.

Contemporary large language model (LLM) agents are remarkably capable, but they still lack reliable safety controls and can produce unconstrained, unpredictable, and even actively harmful outputs. To address this, we introduce Reflection-Driven Control, a standardized and pluggable control module that can be seamlessly integrated into general agent architectures. Reflection-Driven Control elevates "self-reflection" from a post hoc patch into an explicit step in the agent's own reasoning process: during generation, the agent continuously runs an internal reflection loop that monitors and evaluates its own decision path. When potential risks are detected, the system retrieves relevant repair examples and secure coding guidelines from an evolving reflective memory, injecting these evidence-based constraints directly into subsequent reasoning steps. We instantiate Reflection-Driven Control in the setting of secure code generation and systematically evaluate it across eight classes of security-critical programming tasks. Empirical results show that Reflection-Driven Control substantially improves the security and policy compliance of generated code while largely preserving functional correctness, with minimal runtime and token overhead. Taken together, these findings indicate that Reflection-Driven Control is a practical path toward trustworthy AI coding agents: it enables designs that are simultaneously autonomous, safer by construction, and auditable.

Existing datasets for coding agents evaluate performance on isolated, single pull request (PR) tasks in a stateless manner, failing to capture the reality of real-world software development where code changes accumulate, technical debt accrues, and test suites grow over time. To bridge this gap, we introduce an automated coding task generation framework, which helps generate our dataset SWE-STEPS, that evaluates coding agents on long-horizon tasks through two realistic settings mirroring actual developer workflows: Conversational coding with iterative requests, and single-shot Project Requirement document (PRD)-based coding. Unlike existing datasets that evaluate agents on disjointed Pull Requests (PRs), our framework assesses performance across chains of dependent PRs, enabling evaluation of sequential execution, regression verification, and long-term repository health. We discover that widely used isolated PR evaluations yield inflated success rates, w.r.t. our settings - overshooting performance by as much as 20 percentage points - because they ignore the ``spillover'' effects of previous inefficient or buggy code. Furthermore, our analysis reveals that even when agents successfully resolve issues, they degrade repository health by generating code with higher cognitive complexity and technical debt compared to human developers, underscoring the necessity for multidimensional evaluation.

Software is used in critical applications in our day-to-day life and it is important to ensure its correctness. One popular approach to assess correctness is to evaluate software on tests. If a test fails, it indicates a fault in the software under test; if all tests pass correctly, one may assume that the software is correct. However, the reliability of these results depends on the test suite considered, and there is a risk of false negatives (i.e. software that passes all available tests but contains bugs because some cases are not tested). Therefore, it is important to consider error-inducing test cases when evaluating software. To support data-driven creation of such a test-suite, which is especially of interest for testing software synthesized from large language models, we curate a dataset (Codehacks) of programming problems together with corresponding error-inducing test cases (i.e., "hacks"). This dataset is collected from the wild, in particular, from the Codeforces online judge platform. The dataset comprises 288,617 hacks for 5,578 programming problems, each with a natural language description, as well as the source code for 2,196 submitted solutions to these problems that can be broken with their corresponding hacks. Keywords: competitive programming, language model, dataset

Deep Learning (DL) is prevalently used in various industries to improve decision-making and automate processes, driven by the ever-evolving DL libraries and compilers. The correctness of DL systems is crucial for trust in DL applications. As such, the recent wave of research has been studying the automated synthesis of test-cases (i.e., DNN models and their inputs) for fuzzing DL systems. However, existing model generators only subsume a limited number of operators, lacking the ability to pervasively model operator constraints. To address this challenge, we propose NeuRI, a fully automated approach for generating valid and diverse DL models composed of hundreds of types of operators. NeuRI adopts a three-step process: (i) collecting valid and invalid API traces from various sources; (ii) applying inductive program synthesis over the traces to infer the constraints for constructing valid models; and (iii) using hybrid model generation which incorporates both symbolic and concrete operators. Our evaluation shows that NeuRI improves branch coverage of TensorFlow and PyTorch by 24% and 15% over the state-of-the-art model-level fuzzers. NeuRI finds 100 new bugs for PyTorch and TensorFlow in four months, with 81 already fixed or confirmed. Of these, 9 bugs are labelled as high priority or security vulnerability, constituting 10% of all high-priority bugs of the period. Open-source developers regard error-inducing tests reported by us as "high-quality" and "common in practice".

Code-recommendation systems, such as Copilot and CodeWhisperer, have the potential to improve programmer productivity by suggesting and auto-completing code. However, to fully realize their potential, we must understand how programmers interact with these systems and identify ways to improve that interaction. To make progress, we studied GitHub Copilot, a code-recommendation system used by millions of programmers daily. We developed CUPS, a taxonomy of common programmer activities when interacting with Copilot. Our study of 21 programmers, who completed coding tasks and retrospectively labeled their sessions with CUPS, showed that CUPS can help us understand how programmers interact with code-recommendation systems, revealing inefficiencies and time costs. Our insights reveal how programmers interact with Copilot and motivate new interface designs and metrics.

Recently, the large language models (LLMs) have shown extraordinary ability in understanding natural language and generating programming code. It has been a common practice of software engineers to consult LLMs when encountering coding questions. Although efforts have been made to avoid syntax errors and align the code with the intended semantics, the reliability and robustness of the code generationfrom LLMs have not yet been thoroughly studied. The executable code is not equivalent to the reliable and robust code, especially in the context of real-world software development. The misuse of APIs in the generated code could lead to severe problem, such as resource leaks, program crashes. To make things worse, the users of LLM code generation services are actually the developers that are most vulnerable to these code that seems right -- They are always novice developers that are not familiar with the APIs that LLMs generate code for them. Therefore, they could hardly tell the misuse in the code generated by LLMs, which further facilitates the incorrect code applied in real-world software. Existing code evaluation benchmark and datasets focus on crafting small tasks such as programming questions in coding interviews, which however deviates from the problem that developers would ask LLM for real-world coding help. To fill the missing piece, in this work, we propose a dataset RobustAPI for evaluating the reliability and robustness of code generated by LLMs. We collect 1208 coding questions from StackOverflow on 24 representative Java APIs. We summarize thecommon misuse patterns of these APIs and evaluate them oncurrent popular LLMs. The evaluation results show that evenfor GPT-4, 62% of the generated code contains API misuses,which would cause unexpected consequences if the code isintroduced into real-world software.

Coding agents can generate web applications from natural-language descriptions, yet a recent benchmark study shows that generated applications fail to meet functional requirements in over 70% of cases. The core difficulty is that web correctness cannot be assessed from source files or terminal output: the application must be deployed, exercised through simulated browser interactions, and failures must be translated into actionable repair signals -- steps that current agents cannot perform without human mediation. We present TDDev, a framework that automates this closed loop through three stages: (1) converting high-level requirements into structured acceptance tests before any code is written, (2) deploying the application and validating it through browser-based interaction simulation, and (3) translating browser-observed failures into structured repair reports for the coding agent. Enabled by TDDev, we conduct the first controlled empirical study of Test-driven development (TDD) strategies for web application generation, comparing four development protocols across two coding agents, two backbone models, and two benchmarks. TDD infrastructure consistently improves generation quality by 34--48 percentage points over a no-TDD baseline. The central finding is that the optimal protocol depends on the model's generation style: models that build applications holistically benefit most from agentic enforcement, while models that extend code conservatively benefit from incremental enforcement. Mismatching protocol to generation style eliminates the TDD benefit entirely while multiplying token cost up to 25-fold. A user study confirms that TDDev reduces manual developer intervention to zero, shifting the workload from continuous prompt engineering to autonomous, feedback-driven refinement.

Autonomous coding agents are increasingly deployed as AI teammates in modern software engineering, independently authoring pull requests (PRs) that modify production code at scale. This study aims to systematically characterize how autonomous coding agents contribute to software security in practice, how these security-related contributions are reviewed and accepted, and which observable signals are associated with PR rejection. We conduct a large-scale empirical analysis of agent-authored PRs using the AIDev dataset, comprising of over 33,000 curated PRs from popular GitHub repositories. Security-relevant PRs are identified using a keyword filtering strategy, followed by manual validation, resulting in 1,293 confirmed security-related agentic-PRs. We then analyze prevalence, acceptance outcomes, and review latency across autonomous agents, programming ecosystems, and types of code changes. Moreover, we apply qualitative open coding to identify recurring security-related actions and underlying intents, and examine review metadata to identify early signals associated with PR rejection. Security-related Agentic-PRs constitute a meaningful share of agent activity (approximately 4\%). Rather than focusing solely on narrow vulnerability fixes, agents most frequently perform supportive security hardening activities, including testing, documentation, configuration, and improved error handling. Compared to non-security PRs, security-related Agentic-PRs exhibit lower merge rates and longer review latency, reflecting heightened human scrutiny, with variation across agents and programming ecosystems. PR rejection is more strongly associated with PR complexity and verbosity than with explicit security topics.

Code Agents have achieved remarkable advances in recent years, exhibiting strong capabilities across a wide range of software engineering tasks. However, their misuse often produces bloated and disorganized code that impairing readability, extensibility, and robustness. Despite this risk, existing benchmarks largely evaluate functional correctness rather than long-term maintainability of code agents. In this paper, we propose SmellBench, an extensible code refactoring benchmark that proactively injects code smells into clean code snippets from real-world repositories. This design enables the generation of controlled, high-quality, and diverse refactoring cases with human-written ground truth. Specifically, it contains 294 cases spanning 7 popular smell types, 3 difficulty levels, 2 instruction settings across 7 real-world repositories. We further design 3 evaluation aspects covering functional correctness, localization ability, and refactoring quality assessment. Experiments with 2 popular agents and 6 large langauge models (LLMs) show that the best combination - Qwen Code + Claude Sonnet 4.5 - achieved only a 50.34 score of smell elimination. Further analysis reveals that this gap arises from a focus on local code smells and a lack of cross-file understanding, which hinders comprehensive smell elimination.

Designing user interfaces (UIs) is a critical step when launching products, building portfolios, or personalizing projects, yet end users without design expertise often struggle to articulate their intent and to trust design choices. Existing example-based tools either promote broad exploration, which can cause overwhelm and design drift, or require adapting a single example, risking design fixation. We present UI Remix, an interactive system that supports mobile UI design through an example-driven design workflow. Powered by a multimodal retrieval-augmented generation (MMRAG) model, UI Remix enables iterative search, selection, and adaptation of examples at both the global (whole interface) and local (component) level. To foster trust, it presents source transparency cues such as ratings, download counts, and developer information. In an empirical study with 24 end users, UI Remix significantly improved participants' ability to achieve their design goals, facilitated effective iteration, and encouraged exploration of alternative designs. Participants also reported that source transparency cues enhanced their confidence in adapting examples. Our findings suggest new directions for AI-assisted, example-driven systems that empower end users to design with greater control, trust, and openness to exploration.

AI coding agents are reshaping software development through both autonomous and human-mediated pull requests (PRs). When developers use AI agents to generate code under their own accounts, code authorship attribution becomes critical for repository governance, research validity, and understanding modern development practices. We present the first study on fingerprinting AI coding agents, analyzing 33,580 PRs from five major agents (OpenAI Codex, GitHub Copilot, Devin, Cursor, Claude Code) to identify behavioral signatures. With 41 features spanning commit messages, PR structure, and code characteristics, we achieve 97.2% F1-score in multi-class agent identification. We uncover distinct fingerprints: Codex shows unique multiline commit patterns (67.5% feature importance), and Claude Code exhibits distinctive code structure (27.2% importance of conditional statements). These signatures reveal that AI coding tools produce detectable behavioral patterns, suggesting potential for identifying AI contributions in software repositories.

A fundamental skill among human developers is the ability to understand and reason about program execution. As an example, a programmer can mentally simulate code execution in natural language to debug and repair code (aka. rubber duck debugging). However, large language models (LLMs) of code are typically trained on the surface textual form of programs, thus may lack a semantic understanding of how programs execute at run-time. To address this issue, we propose NExT, a method to teach LLMs to inspect the execution traces of programs (variable states of executed lines) and reason about their run-time behavior through chain-of-thought (CoT) rationales. Specifically, NExT uses self-training to bootstrap a synthetic training set of execution-aware rationales that lead to correct task solutions (e.g., fixed programs) without laborious manual annotation. Experiments on program repair tasks based on MBPP and HumanEval demonstrate that NExT improves the fix rate of a PaLM 2 model, by 26.1% and 14.3% absolute, respectively, with significantly improved rationale quality as verified by automated metrics and human raters. Our model can also generalize to scenarios where program traces are absent at test-time.

Large language models (LLMs) have brought significant advancements to code generation and code repair, benefiting both novice and experienced developers. However, their training using unsanitized data from open-source repositories, like GitHub, raises the risk of inadvertently propagating security vulnerabilities. Despite numerous studies investigating the safety of code LLMs, there remains a gap in comprehensively addressing their security features. In this work, we aim to present a comprehensive study aimed at precisely evaluating and enhancing the security aspects of code LLMs. To support our research, we introduce CodeSecEval, a meticulously curated dataset designed to address 44 critical vulnerability types with 180 distinct samples. CodeSecEval serves as the foundation for the automatic evaluation of code models in two crucial tasks: code generation and code repair, with a strong emphasis on security. Our experimental results reveal that current models frequently overlook security issues during both code generation and repair processes, resulting in the creation of vulnerable code. In response, we propose different strategies that leverage vulnerability-aware information and insecure code explanations to mitigate these security vulnerabilities. Furthermore, our findings highlight that certain vulnerability types particularly challenge model performance, influencing their effectiveness in real-world applications. Based on these findings, we believe our study will have a positive impact on the software engineering community, inspiring the development of improved methods for training and utilizing LLMs, thereby leading to safer and more trustworthy model deployment.

As large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT, Copilot, Claude, and Gemini become integrated into software development workflows, developers increasingly leave traces of AI involvement in their code comments. Among these, some comments explicitly acknowledge both the use of generative AI and the presence of technical shortcomings. Analyzing 6,540 LLM-referencing code comments from public Python and JavaScript-based GitHub repositories (November 2022-July 2025), we identified 81 that also self-admit technical debt(SATD). Developers most often describe postponed testing, incomplete adaptation, and limited understanding of AI-generated code, suggesting that AI assistance affects both when and why technical debt emerges. We term GenAI-Induced Self-admitted Technical debt (GIST) as a proposed conceptual lens to describe recurring cases where developers incorporate AI-generated code while explicitly expressing uncertainty about its behavior or correctness.

Maintainability is a core dimension of software engineering, shaping how code is written, reviewed, and developed over time. While coding agents have demonstrated strong performance on single-issue tasks, it remains unclear how maintainable their code is when future agents build on top of it, potentially leading to compounding downstream effects. We investigate how agent code compares to human code in these maintenance settings, presenting CodeThread, a framework to construct controlled experiments from repository-level coding benchmarks. Applying CodeThread to four frontier coding agents and four benchmarks, we find that agents are less effective at resolving tasks when building on agent code compared to human code, with task resolve rate drops of up to 13.1%. Regression analysis reveals that many traditional software engineering maintainability metrics do not explain this difference. Instead, the clearest signals are subtler behavioral differences in agent code, such as changes to input validation and error handling, along with differences in downstream code size and task difficulty. These findings highlight the need to evaluate these systems not only by immediate task resolution but also by code maintainability, and point to potential sources of downstream errors introduced by agent code.

Solving an NP-hard optimization problem often requires reformulating it for a specific solver -- quantum hardware, a commercial optimizer, or a domain heuristic. A tool for polynomial-time reductions between hard problems would let practitioners route any supported problem to any supported solver through a single interface. Building such a library at scale, however, has remained out of reach. We show that harness engineering, the practice of designing constraints, verification systems, and feedback loops that channel AI coding agents, can overcome this barrier. Our harness combines a no-code contribution route for domain experts, a multilayer verification stack ranging from type-level checks to agentic feature tests (AI agents role-playing as end users), and a fully automated implementation-review-integration pipeline. In about three months, we built a command-line tool backed by a library of 100+ problem types and 200+~reduction rules in over 170k lines of Rust. The result suggests that a well-engineered harness lets agents build well-tested software at a scale and pace beyond prior reduction-library efforts. Because the reduction graph composes transitively, a new solver registered for any single problem type instantly becomes available to every problem connected by a reduction path. The source code is available at https://github.com/CodingThrust/problem-reductions.

Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in diverse tasks such as text generation, data analysis, and software development, making them indispensable across domains like education, business, and creative industries. However, the rapid proliferation of LLMs (with over 560 companies developing or deploying them as of 2024) has raised concerns about their originality and trustworthiness. A notable issue, termed identity confusion, has emerged, where LLMs misrepresent their origins or identities. This study systematically examines identity confusion through three research questions: (1) How prevalent is identity confusion among LLMs? (2) Does it arise from model reuse, plagiarism, or hallucination? (3) What are the security and trust-related impacts of identity confusion? To address these, we developed an automated tool combining documentation analysis, self-identity recognition testing, and output similarity comparisons--established methods for LLM fingerprinting--and conducted a structured survey via Credamo to assess its impact on user trust. Our analysis of 27 LLMs revealed that 25.93% exhibit identity confusion. Output similarity analysis confirmed that these issues stem from hallucinations rather than replication or reuse. Survey results further highlighted that identity confusion significantly erodes trust, particularly in critical tasks like education and professional use, with declines exceeding those caused by logical errors or inconsistencies. Users attributed these failures to design flaws, incorrect training data, and perceived plagiarism, underscoring the systemic risks posed by identity confusion to LLM reliability and trustworthiness.

Recent advancements in software engineering agents have demonstrated promising capabilities in automating program improvements. However, their reliance on closed-source or resource-intensive models introduces significant deployment challenges in private environments, prompting a critical question: How can personally deployable open-source LLMs achieve comparable code reasoning performance? To this end, we propose a unified Test-Time Compute scaling framework that leverages increased inference-time computation instead of larger models. Our framework incorporates two complementary strategies: internal TTC and external TTC. Internally, we introduce a development-contextualized trajectory synthesis method leveraging real-world software repositories to bootstrap multi-stage reasoning processes, such as fault localization and patch generation. We further enhance trajectory quality through rejection sampling, rigorously evaluating trajectories along accuracy and complexity. Externally, we propose a novel development-process-based search strategy guided by reward models and execution verification. This approach enables targeted computational allocation at critical development decision points, overcoming limitations of existing "end-point only" verification methods. Evaluations on SWE-bench Verified demonstrate our 32B model achieves a 46\% issue resolution rate, surpassing significantly larger models such as DeepSeek R1 671B and OpenAI o1. Additionally, we provide the empirical validation of the test-time scaling phenomenon within SWE agents, revealing that models dynamically allocate more tokens to increasingly challenging problems, effectively enhancing reasoning capabilities. We publicly release all training data, models, and code to facilitate future research. https://github.com/yingweima2022/SWE-Reasoner

Large Language Models (LLMs) are poised to disrupt knowledge work, with the emergence of delegated work as a new interaction paradigm (e.g., vibe coding). Delegation requires trust - the expectation that the LLM will faithfully execute the task without introducing errors into documents. We introduce DELEGATE-52 to study the readiness of AI systems in delegated workflows. DELEGATE-52 simulates long delegated workflows that require in-depth document editing across 52 professional domains, such as coding, crystallography, and music notation. Our large-scale experiment with 19 LLMs reveals that current models degrade documents during delegation: even frontier models (Gemini 3.1 Pro, Claude 4.6 Opus, GPT 5.4) corrupt an average of 25% of document content by the end of long workflows, with other models failing more severely. Additional experiments reveal that agentic tool use does not improve performance on DELEGATE-52, and that degradation severity is exacerbated by document size, length of interaction, or presence of distractor files. Our analysis shows that current LLMs are unreliable delegates: they introduce sparse but severe errors that silently corrupt documents, compounding over long interaction.

A critical part of creating code suggestion systems is the pre-training of Large Language Models on vast amounts of source code and natural language text, often of questionable origin or quality. This may contribute to the presence of bugs and vulnerabilities in code generated by LLMs. While efforts to identify bugs at or after code generation exist, it is preferable to pre-train or fine-tune LLMs on curated, high-quality, and compliant datasets. The need for vast amounts of training data necessitates that such curation be automated, minimizing human intervention. We propose an automated source code autocuration technique that leverages the complete version history of open-source software projects to improve the quality of training data. This approach leverages the version history of all OSS projects to identify training data samples that have been modified or have undergone changes in at least one OSS project, and pinpoint a subset of samples that include fixes for bugs or vulnerabilities. We evaluate this method using The Stack v2 dataset, and find that 17% of the code versions in the dataset have newer versions, with 17% of those representing bug fixes, including 2.36% addressing known CVEs. The deduplicated version of Stack v2 still includes blobs vulnerable to 6,947 known CVEs. Furthermore, 58% of the blobs in the dataset were never modified after creation, suggesting they likely represent software with minimal or no use. Misidentified blob origins present an additional challenge, as they lead to the inclusion of non-permissively licensed code, raising serious compliance concerns. By addressing these issues, the training of new models can avoid perpetuating buggy code patterns or license violations. We expect our results to inspire process improvements for automated data curation, with the potential to enhance the reliability of outputs generated by AI tools.

The rapid evolution of Large Language Models (LLMs) into autonomous, tool-calling agents has fundamentally altered the cybersecurity landscape. Frameworks like OpenClaw grant AI systems operating-system-level permissions and the autonomy to execute complex workflows. This level of access creates unprecedented security challenges. Consequently, traditional content-filtering defenses have become obsolete. This report presents a comprehensive security analysis of the OpenClaw ecosystem. We systematically investigate its current threat landscape, highlighting critical vulnerabilities such as prompt injection-driven Remote Code Execution (RCE), sequential tool attack chains, context amnesia, and supply chain contamination. To systematically contextualize these threats, we propose a novel tri-layered risk taxonomy for autonomous Agents, categorizing vulnerabilities across AI Cognitive, Software Execution, and Information System dimensions. To address these systemic architectural flaws, we introduce the Full-Lifecycle Agent Security Architecture (FASA). This theoretical defense blueprint advocates for zero-trust agentic execution, dynamic intent verification, and cross-layer reasoning-action correlation. Building on this framework, we present Project ClawGuard, our ongoing engineering initiative. This project aims to implement the FASA paradigm and transition autonomous agents from high-risk experimental utilities into trustworthy systems. Our code and dataset are available at https://github.com/NY1024/ClawGuard.

The proliferation of Large Language Models (LLMs) accessed via black-box APIs introduces a significant trust challenge: users pay for services based on advertised model capabilities (e.g., size, performance), but providers may covertly substitute the specified model with a cheaper, lower-quality alternative to reduce operational costs. This lack of transparency undermines fairness, erodes trust, and complicates reliable benchmarking. Detecting such substitutions is difficult due to the black-box nature, typically limiting interaction to input-output queries. This paper formalizes the problem of model substitution detection in LLM APIs. We systematically evaluate existing verification techniques, including output-based statistical tests, benchmark evaluations, and log probability analysis, under various realistic attack scenarios like model quantization, randomized substitution, and benchmark evasion. Our findings reveal the limitations of methods relying solely on text outputs, especially against subtle or adaptive attacks. While log probability analysis offers stronger guarantees when available, its accessibility is often limited. We conclude by discussing the potential of hardware-based solutions like Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs) as a pathway towards provable model integrity, highlighting the trade-offs between security, performance, and provider adoption. Code is available at https://github.com/sunblaze-ucb/llm-api-audit

Package dependencies are a critical control point in modern software supply chains. Dependency changes can substantially alter a project's security posture. As AI coding agents increasingly modify software via pull requests, it is unclear whether their dependency decisions introduce distinct security risks. We study 117,062 dependency changes from agent- and human-authored pull requests across seven ecosystems. Agents select known-vulnerable versions more often than humans (2.46% vs. 1.64%), and their vulnerable selections are more disruptive to remediate, with 36.8% requiring major-version upgrades compared to 12.9% for humans, despite patched alternatives existing in most cases. At the aggregate level, agent-driven dependency work yields a net vulnerability increase of 98, whereas human-authored work yields a net reduction of 1,316. These findings motivate pull-request-time vulnerability screening and registry-aware guardrails to make agent-driven dependency updates safer.

In the age of open and free information, a concerning trend of reliance on AI is emerging. However, existing AI tools struggle to evaluate the credibility of information and to justify their assessments. Hence, there is a growing need for systems that can help users evaluate the trustworthiness of online information. Although major search engines incorporate AI features, they often lack clear reliability indicators. We present TrueGL, a model that makes trustworthy search results more accessible. The model is a fine-tuned version of IBM's Granite-1B, trained on the custom dataset and integrated into a search engine with a reliability scoring system. We evaluate the system using prompt engineering and assigning each statement a continuous reliability score from 0.1 to 1, then instructing the model to return a textual explanation alongside the score. Each model's predicted scores are measured against real scores using standard evaluation metrics. TrueGL consistently outperforms other small-scale LLMs and rule-based approaches across all experiments on key evaluation metrics, including MAE, RMSE, and R2. The model's high accuracy, broad content coverage, and ease of use make trustworthy information more accessible and help reduce the spread of false or misleading content online. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/AlgazinovAleksandr/TrueGL, and our model is publicly released at https://huggingface.co/JoydeepC/trueGL.

The widespread availability of large-scale code datasets has accelerated the development of code large language models (CodeLLMs), raising concerns about unauthorized dataset usage. Dataset poisoning offers a proactive defense by reducing the utility of such unauthorized training. However, existing poisoning methods often require full dataset poisoning and introduce transformations that break code compilability. In this paper, we introduce FunPoison, a functionality-preserving poisoning approach that injects short, compilable weak-use fragments into executed code paths. FunPoison leverages reusable statement-level templates with automatic repair and conservative safety checking to ensure side-effect freedom, while a type-aware synthesis module suppresses static analysis warnings and enhances stealth. Extensive experiments show that FunPoison achieves effective poisoning by contaminating only 10% of the dataset, while maintaining 100% compilability and functional correctness, and remains robust against various advanced code sanitization techniques.

The United States Department of Defense (DOD) looks to accelerate the development and deployment of AI capabilities across a wide spectrum of defense applications to maintain strategic advantages. However, many common features of AI algorithms that make them powerful, such as capacity for learning, large-scale data ingestion, and problem-solving, raise new technical, security, and ethical challenges. These challenges may hinder adoption due to uncertainty in development, testing, assurance, processes, and requirements. Trustworthiness through assurance is essential to achieve the expected value from AI. This paper proposes a claims-based framework for risk management and assurance of AI systems that addresses the competing needs for faster deployment, successful adoption, and rigorous evaluation. This framework supports programs across all acquisition pathways provide grounds for sufficient confidence that an AI-enabled system (AIES) meets its intended mission goals without introducing unacceptable risks throughout its lifecycle. The paper's contributions are a framework process for AI assurance, a set of relevant definitions to enable constructive conversations on the topic of AI assurance, and a discussion of important considerations in AI assurance. The framework aims to provide the DOD a robust yet efficient mechanism for swiftly fielding effective AI capabilities without overlooking critical risks or undermining stakeholder trust.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) exhibit strong performance, yet often produce rationales that sound plausible but fail to reflect their true decision process, undermining reliability and trust. We introduce a formal framework for reasoning faithfulness, defined by two testable conditions: stance consistency (a coherent stance linking reasoning to answer) and causal influence (the stated reasoning causally drives the answer under output-level interventions), explicitly decoupled from accuracy. To operationalize this, we present RFEval, a benchmark of 7,186 instances across seven tasks that probes faithfulness via controlled, output-level counterfactual interventions. Evaluating twelve open-source LRMs, we find unfaithfulness in 49.7% of outputs, predominantly from stance inconsistency. Failures are concentrated in brittle, convergent domains such as math and code, and correlate more with post-training regimes than with scale: within-family ablations indicate that adding current RL-style objectives on top of supervised fine-tuning can reduce reasoning faithfulness, even when accuracy is maintained. Crucially, accuracy is neither a sufficient nor a reliable proxy for faithfulness: once controlling for model and task, the accuracy-faithfulness link is weak and statistically insignificant. Our work establishes a rigorous methodology for auditing LRM reliability and shows that trustworthy AI requires optimizing not only for correct outcomes but also for the structural integrity of the reasoning process. Our code and dataset can be found at project page: https://aidaslab.github.io/RFEval/}{https://aidaslab.github.io/RFEval/

Modern code completion engines, powered by large language models (LLMs), assist millions of developers with their strong capabilities to generate functionally correct code. Due to this popularity, it is crucial to investigate the security implications of relying on LLM-based code completion. In this work, we demonstrate that state-of-the-art black-box LLM-based code completion engines can be stealthily biased by adversaries to significantly increase their rate of insecure code generation. We present the first attack, named INSEC, that achieves this goal. INSEC works by injecting an attack string as a short comment in the completion input. The attack string is crafted through a query-based optimization procedure starting from a set of carefully designed initialization schemes. We demonstrate INSEC's broad applicability and effectiveness by evaluating it on various state-of-the-art open-source models and black-box commercial services (e.g., OpenAI API and GitHub Copilot). On a diverse set of security-critical test cases, covering 16 CWEs across 5 programming languages, INSEC increases the rate of generated insecure code by more than 50%, while maintaining the functional correctness of generated code. We consider INSEC practical -- it requires low resources and costs less than 10 US dollars to develop on commodity hardware. Moreover, we showcase the attack's real-world deployability, by developing an IDE plug-in that stealthily injects INSEC into the GitHub Copilot extension.

LLM-powered coding agents are redefining how real-world software is developed. To drive the research towards better coding agents, we require challenging benchmarks that can rigorously evaluate the ability of such agents to perform various software engineering tasks. However, popular coding benchmarks such as HumanEval and SWE-Bench focus on narrowly scoped tasks such as competition programming and patch generation. In reality, software engineers have to handle a broader set of tasks for real-world software development. To address this gap, we propose OmniCode, a novel software engineering benchmark that contains a broader and more diverse set of task categories beyond code or patch generation. Overall, OmniCode contains 1794 tasks spanning three programming languages (Python, Java, and C++) and four key categories: bug fixing, test generation, code review fixing, and style fixing. In contrast to prior software engineering benchmarks, the tasks in OmniCode are (1) manually validated to eliminate ill-defined problems, and (2) synthetically crafted or recently curated to avoid data leakage issues, presenting a new framework for synthetically generating diverse software tasks from limited real-world data. We evaluate OmniCode with popular agent frameworks such as SWE-Agent and show that while they may perform well on bug fixing for Python, they fall short on tasks such as Test Generation and in languages such as C++ and Java. For instance, SWE-Agent achieves a maximum of 20.9% with DeepSeek-V3.1 on Java Test Generation tasks. OmniCode aims to serve as a robust benchmark and spur the development of agents that can perform well across different aspects of software development. Code and data are available at https://github.com/seal-research/OmniCode.

Software increasingly functions as part of the scientific instrument itself, making failures in scientific code capable of compromising not only program behavior but also the evidence underlying scientific conclusions. Yet existing evaluations of coding agents largely emphasize aggregate task success, providing limited insight into why agents fail when repairing scientific software. We introduce SWE-bench Science, a repository-level benchmark for scientific software engineering comprising 119 tasks from 98 GitHub repositories across 20 scientific domains. Each task is organized into one of three paradigms: Issue-driven, Expert-exploratory, and Engineering-integration. Even the best-performing agent, Claude Code with Opus-5 (max), achieves a pass@1 below 50\%, highlighting the substantial challenges posed by scientific software engineering. We identify four recurring failure mechanisms: deficits in scientific knowledge or abstraction, misguided exploration or surface-level repair, incomplete repair coverage or system integration, and failures to generalize scientific knowledge beyond observed cases in our analysis. We further conduct a paired ablation that removes explicit scientific guidance while preserving the repository and executable engineering context. The results show that scientific knowledge is not uniformly beneficial: well-grounded information can constrain repair and improve average performance and token efficiency, whereas poorly aligned guidance can induce anchoring and does not necessarily improve exact repair success. Together, SWE-bench Science provides a broad testbed for studying both the capabilities and failure mechanisms of coding agents in scientific software engineering.

AI systems are fallible, and humans can make mistakes in deciding whether to trust AI over their own judgment. Thus, improving human-AI collaboration requires understanding when, why, and how humans decide to rely on AI. We study two distinct reliance decisions: the delegation choice -- deciding when to let AI act autonomously without knowing its output, and the adoption choice -- evaluating AI suggestions and deciding how to use them. Both of these decoupled reliance patterns shape collaboration, but prior work rarely studies them together in realistic settings with the same users. We address this gap by studying collaborative human--AI teams competing in a question-answering game in which humans can choose when and how to work with AI agents to win. Our 24 matches pair 23 expert humans with 16 AI agents, capturing 387 delegation and 1440 adoption decisions. While human--AI collaboration performs better than either AI or humans alone, humans make suboptimal collaboration decisions, both under-relying on correct AI suggestions (3.9% of opportunities missed) and over-relying when AI misleads them (1.7%). Both parties contribute wrong answers: reported model confidence is near chance when humans and AI disagree, while confirmation bias drives higher under-reliance (64.5%) when an AI suggestion agrees with humans' initial incorrect answer. To close this gap, we recommend calibrated confidence, evidence-grounded explanations, and mechanisms that help users refine trust.

Code review is a critical software engineering practice where developers review code changes before integration to ensure code quality, detect defects, and improve maintainability. In recent years, AI agents that can understand code context, plan review actions, and interact with development environments have been increasingly integrated into the code review process. However, there is limited empirical evidence to compare the effectiveness of AI agents and human reviewers in collaborative workflows. To address this gap, we conduct a large-scale empirical analysis of 278,790 code review conversations across 300 open-source GitHub projects. In our study, we aim to compare the feedback differences provided by human reviewers and AI agents. We investigate human-AI collaboration patterns in review conversations to understand how interaction shapes review outcomes. Moreover, we analyze the adoption of code suggestions provided by human reviewers and AI agents into the codebase and how adopted suggestions change code quality. We find that human reviewers provide additional feedback than AI agents, including understanding, testing, and knowledge transfer. Human reviewers exchange 11.8% more rounds when reviewing AI-generated code than human-written code. Moreover, code suggestions made by AI agents are adopted into the codebase at a significantly lower rate than suggestions proposed by human reviewers. Over half of unadopted suggestions from AI agents are either incorrect or addressed through alternative fixes by developers. When adopted, suggestions provided by AI agents produce significantly larger increases in code complexity and code size than suggestions provided by human reviewers. Our findings suggest that while AI agents can scale defect screening, human oversight remains critical for ensuring suggestion quality and providing contextual feedback that AI agents lack.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have been demonstrating increasingly strong reasoning capability with their chain-of-thoughts (CoT), which are routinely used by humans to judge answer quality. This reliance creates a powerful yet fragile basis for trust. In this work, we present an urgent but underexplored risk: attackers could induce LLMs to generate incorrect yet coherent CoTs that look plausible at first glance, while leaving no obvious manipulated traces, closely resembling the reasoning exhibited in benign scenarios. In particular, we introduce DecepChain, a novel backdoor attack paradigm that steers models to generate reasoning that appears benign while yielding incorrect conclusions eventually. At a high level, DecepChain exploits LLMs' own hallucination and amplifies it by fine-tuning on naturally erroneous rollouts generated by the model itself and then reinforces it via Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) with a flipped reward on triggered inputs, plus a plausibility regularizer to preserve fluent, benign-looking reasoning. Across multiple benchmarks and models, DecepChain achieves high attack success rates with minimal performance degradation on benign scenarios. Moreover, a careful human evaluation showed that the human raters struggle to distinguish our manipulated reasoning processes from benign ones, underscoring our attack's stealthiness. Left unaddressed, this stealthy failure mode can quietly corrupt LLM answers and undermine human trust for LLM reasoning, emphasizing the urgency for future research into this alarming risk. Project page: https://decepchain.github.io/.

As programmers write code, they often edit and retry multiple times, creating rich "interaction traces" that reveal how they approach coding tasks and provide clues about their level of skill development. For novice programmers in particular, these traces reflect the diverse reasoning processes they employ to code, such as exploratory behavior to understand how a programming concept works, re-strategizing in response to bugs, and personalizing stylistic choices. In this work, we explore what can be learned from training language models on such reasoning traces: not just about code, but about coders, and particularly students learning to program. We introduce a dataset of over 3.8 million programming reasoning traces from users of Pencil Code, a free online educational platform used by students to learn simple programming concepts. Compared to models trained only on final programs or synthetically-generated traces, we find that models trained on real traces are stronger at modeling diverse student behavior. Through both behavioral and probing analyses, we also find that many properties of code traces, such as goal backtracking or number of comments, can be predicted from learned representations of the students who write them. Building on this result, we show that we can help students recover from mistakes by steering code generation models to identify a sequence of edits that will results in more correct code while remaining close to the original student's style. Together, our results suggest that many properties of code are properties of individual students and that training on edit traces can lead to models that are more steerable, more predictive of student behavior while programming, and better at generating programs in their final states. Code and data is available at https://github.com/meghabyte/pencilcode-public

LLM coding agents can generate working code, but their solutions often accumulate complexity, duplication, and architectural debt. Human developers address such issues through refactoring: behavior-preserving program transformations that improve structure and maintainability. We investigate whether agents (i) can execute refactorings reliably and (ii) identify the refactorings that human developers actually chose in real codebases. To this end, we construct CodeTaste, a benchmark mined from large multi-file open-source refactorings. To score solutions, we combine repository test suites that measure functional correctness with tailored static checks that verify removal of undesired and introduction of desired code patterns using dataflow reasoning. Our results show a clear gap: agents perform well at implementing refactorings that are specified in detail, but often fail to discover the human refactoring choices when given a focus area for changes. A propose-then-implement decomposition improves alignment, and selecting the best-aligned proposal before implementation can yield further gains. CodeTaste provides an evaluation target and a potential preference signal for aligning coding agents with human refactoring decisions in realistic codebases. We release the benchmark, leaderboard, and code.

Open source code is considered a common practice in modern software development. However, reusing other code allows bad actors to access a wide developers' community, hence the products that rely on it. Those attacks are categorized as supply chain attacks. Recent years saw a growing number of supply chain attacks that leverage open source during software development, relaying the download and installation procedures, whether automatic or manual. Over the years, many approaches have been invented for detecting vulnerable packages. However, it is uncommon to detect malicious code within packages. Those detection approaches can be broadly categorized as analyzes that use (dynamic) and do not use (static) code execution. Here, we introduce Malicious Source code Detection using Transformers (MSDT) algorithm. MSDT is a novel static analysis based on a deep learning method that detects real-world code injection cases to source code packages. In this study, we used MSDT and a dataset with over 600,000 different functions to embed various functions and applied a clustering algorithm to the resulting vectors, detecting the malicious functions by detecting the outliers. We evaluated MSDT's performance by conducting extensive experiments and demonstrated that our algorithm is capable of detecting functions that were injected with malicious code with precision@k values of up to 0.909.

Agentic systems have recently emerged as a promising tool to automate literature-based ideation. However, current systems often remain black-box, with limited transparency or control for researchers. Our work introduces TrustResearcher, a multi-agent demo system for knowledge-grounded and transparent ideation. Specifically, TrustResearcher integrates meticulously designed four stages into a unified framework: (A) Structured Knowledge Curation, (B) Diversified Idea Generation, (C) Multi-stage Idea Selection, and (D) Expert Panel Review and Synthesis. Different from prior pipelines, our system not only exposes intermediate reasoning states, execution logs, and configurable agents for inspections, but also enables diverse and evidence-aligned idea generation. Our design is also domain-agnostic, where the same pipeline can be instantiated in any scientific field. As an illustrative case, we demonstrate TrustResearcher on a graph-mining scenario (k-truss breaking problem), where it generates distinct, plausible candidates with evidence and critiques. A live demo and source code are available at https://github.com/valleysprings/TrustResearcher

The Model Context Protocol (MCP) represents a significant advancement in AI-tool integration, enabling seamless communication between AI agents and external services. However, this connectivity introduces novel attack vectors that remain largely unexplored. This paper demonstrates how unsophisticated threat actors, requiring only basic programming skills and free web tools, can exploit MCP's trust model to exfiltrate sensitive financial data. We present a proof-of-concept attack where a malicious weather MCP server, disguised as benign functionality, discovers and exploits legitimate banking tools to steal user account balances. The attack chain requires no advanced technical knowledge, server infrastructure, or monetary investment. The findings reveal a critical security gap in the emerging MCP ecosystem: while individual servers may appear trustworthy, their combination creates unexpected cross-server attack surfaces. Unlike traditional cybersecurity threats that assume sophisticated adversaries, our research shows that the barrier to entry for MCP-based attacks is alarmingly low. A threat actor with undergraduate-level Python knowledge can craft convincing social engineering attacks that exploit the implicit trust relationships MCP establishes between AI agents and tool providers. This work contributes to the nascent field of MCP security by demonstrating that current MCP implementations allow trivial cross-server attacks and proposing both immediate mitigations and protocol improvements to secure this emerging ecosystem.

As long-horizon coding agents produce more code than any developer can review, oversight collapses onto a single surface: the automated test suite. Reward hacking naturally arises in this setup, as the agent optimizes for passing tests while deviating from the users true goal. We study this reward hacking phenomenon by decompose software engineering tasks into three parts: (i) a natural language description of the specification (ii) visible validation tests that exercise specified features in isolation, and (iii) held-out tests that compose those same features to simulate real-world usage. Based on the specification and the visible validation test suites, a genuine agent would be able to generate a solution that can also pass all of the held-out tests. Therefore we use the gap in pass rates on these two suites to quantify reward hacking. Based on this methodology, we introduce SpecBench, a benchmark comprising 30 systems-level programming tasks ranging from short horizon tasks like building a JSON parser to ultra long horizon tasks like building an entire OS kernel from scratch. Large-scale experiments reveal a consistent pattern: while every frontier agent saturates the visible suite, reward hacking persists, with smaller models exhibiting larger gaps on holdout suites. The gap also scales sharply with task length: it grows by 28 percentage points for every tenfold increase in code size. Failures range from subtle feature isolation to deliberate exploits, including a 2,900-line hash-table "compiler" that memorizes test inputs. SpecBench offers a principled testbed for measuring whether coding agents build genuine working systems or merely game the test suites developers hand them.

With the rapid evolution of Large Language Models (LLMs), LLM-based agents and Multi-agent Systems (MAS) have significantly expanded the capabilities of LLM ecosystems. This evolution stems from empowering LLMs with additional modules such as memory, tools, environment, and even other agents. However, this advancement has also introduced more complex issues of trustworthiness, which previous research focused solely on LLMs could not cover. In this survey, we propose the TrustAgent framework, a comprehensive study on the trustworthiness of agents, characterized by modular taxonomy, multi-dimensional connotations, and technical implementation. By thoroughly investigating and summarizing newly emerged attacks, defenses, and evaluation methods for agents and MAS, we extend the concept of Trustworthy LLM to the emerging paradigm of Trustworthy Agent. In TrustAgent, we begin by deconstructing and introducing various components of the Agent and MAS. Then, we categorize their trustworthiness into intrinsic (brain, memory, and tool) and extrinsic (user, agent, and environment) aspects. Subsequently, we delineate the multifaceted meanings of trustworthiness and elaborate on the implementation techniques of existing research related to these internal and external modules. Finally, we present our insights and outlook on this domain, aiming to provide guidance for future endeavors.

The integration of AI-powered coding agents into Continuous Integration/Continuous Delivery (CI/CD) pipelines has fundamentally altered how software verification is conducted. While these agents successfully automate the test generation, current evaluation benchmarks (e.g., SWE-bench) largely focus on pass-rates rather than the intrinsic quality of the generated tests. This raises the possibility of "stealth technical debt", in which test suites pass execution but do not offer comprehensive coverage or semantic value. We address this methodological gap through a large-scale, empirical comparison of 204,673 test artifacts which comprises of 24,941 human-authored files and 179,732 agent-generated files; sourced from the AIDev dataset. Using the Abstract Syntax Tree (AST) parsing with Python's naive ast module, we implemented a "white-box" static analysis framework to evaluate three quality dimensions: Assertion Strength (RQ1), Edge-Case Coverage (RQ2), and Flakiness Potential (RQ3). Our results present a nuanced inversion of traditional assumptions. AI agents performed better than humans in Edge-Case Coverage, with almost twice the variety of boundary checks (Variety Score: 0.62 vs 0.32) and a higher frequency of null-safety testing (13.40% vs. 8.3%), even though human developers had a slight advantage in Assertion Strength (88.1% strong assertions vs. 85.37% for agents). But this thoroughness comes at a price: due mostly to their reliance on file I/O and non-deterministic logic, agent-generated tests exhibited a higher risk of flakiness (Candidate Rate: 0.41 vs. 0.30). These findings suggest that while AI agents excel at rigorous boundary testing, they lack the "environmental awareness" needed to write stable, hermetic tests.

Large language models for code (i.e., code LLMs) have shown strong code understanding and generation capabilities. To evaluate the capabilities of code LLMs in various aspects, many benchmarks have been proposed (e.g., HumanEval and ClassEval). Code reasoning is one of the most essential abilities of code LLMs, but existing benchmarks for code reasoning are not sufficient. Typically, they focus on predicting the input and output of a program, ignoring the evaluation of the intermediate behavior during program execution, as well as the logical consistency (e.g., the model should not give the correct output if the prediction of execution path is wrong) when performing the reasoning. To address these problems, in this paper, we propose a framework, namely REval, for evaluating code reasoning abilities and consistency of code LLMs with program execution. We utilize existing code benchmarks and adapt them to new benchmarks within our framework. A large-scale empirical study is conducted and most LLMs show unsatisfactory performance on both Runtime Behavior Reasoning (i.e., an average accuracy of 44.4%) and Incremental Consistency Evaluation (i.e., an average IC score of 10.3). Evaluation results of current code LLMs reflect the urgent need for the community to strengthen the code reasoning capability of code LLMs. Our code, data, and \newname leaderboard are available at https://r-eval.github.io.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to software engineering tasks, especially code repair. However, developers often struggle to interpret model outputs, limiting effective human-AI teaming. Prior work largely optimizes repaired code while under-addressing the natural-language feedback that enables comprehension and iterative improvement. We present DPO-f+, a novel framework that aligns code-repair feedback with developer needs and profiles. It (1) formalizes developer-profiled, domain-specific metrics for feedback alignment; (2) automatically constructs pairwise preference datasets from code-repair tasks; (3) fine-tunes using Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) augmented with a lightweight margin signal; and (4) provides an automated feedback evaluation protocol. Empirically, DPO-f+ outperforms both the baseline and standard DPO on generated-code accuracy and overall feedback alignment. On novice programming tasks, DPO-f+ raises the top-1 pass rate by 5.71 percentage points (pp) over the baseline and by 3.30 pp over DPO. On the more challenging SWE-bench Lite benchmark, it increases the issue-resolution rate by 1.67 pp over DPO and by 4.67 pp over the baseline. It also achieves the largest improvement in feedback alignment, outperforming DPO and the baseline. By aligning feedback more closely with developer needs, DPO-f+ turns LLM-assisted repair from one-shot outputs into a collaborative sensemaking workflow, providing a practical approach to enhancing code comprehension and fostering more effective human-AI teaming in software engineering.

Generative AI and coding agents are intensifying a central governance tension in open-source software (OSS): they scale contribution generation faster than maintainers can assess risk, evidence, and accountability. Existing responses improve agent-readability and traceability, but project rules must also organize contribution-specific risk, evidence, accountability, and review-gate states. We theorize this organizational arrangement as project-side governability infrastructure. A diagnostic audit of 50 GitHub repositories finds widespread general governance artifacts, observable agent-readability, and fragmented AI-governance cues, but no project-wide arrangement that coordinates shared rules, preparation obligations, verification rights, and maintainer decision authority across AI-mediated contribution workflows. We develop the Agent Governance Manifest (AGM) as a repository-hosted boundary resource and bidirectional governance contract linking contributor-side evidence preparation with maintainer-side verification. In a controlled reviewer-side evaluation with 15 participants and 75 task-level outputs, AGM-supported materials improved exact risk-label recovery (37/38 vs. 15/37) and perceived review support (6.14 vs. 3.27 on a 1-7 scale). In a contributor-side feasibility check, 15 participants completed 45 tasks; all final packages represented the core governance state correctly, and 41 passed strict structural validation. The study develops a three-layer framework of agent-readability, traceability, and governability, theorizes agent-mediated contributions as governable boundary objects, and advances compliance-enabling digital innovation governance while preserving maintainer decision authority.

This paper aims to explore fundamental questions in the era when AI coding assistants like GitHub Copilot are widely adopted: what do developers truly value and criticize in AI coding assistants, and what does this reveal about their needs and expectations in real-world software development? Unlike previous studies that conduct observational research in controlled and simulated environments, we analyze extensive, first-hand user reviews of AI coding assistants, which capture developers' authentic perspectives and experiences drawn directly from their actual day-to-day work contexts. We identify 1,085 AI coding assistants from the Visual Studio Code Marketplace. Although they only account for 1.64% of all extensions, we observe a surge in these assistants: over 90% of them are released within the past two years. We then manually analyze the user reviews sampled from 32 AI coding assistants that have sufficient installations and reviews to construct a comprehensive taxonomy of user concerns and feedback about these assistants. We manually annotate each review's attitude when mentioning certain aspects of coding assistants, yielding nuanced insights into user satisfaction and dissatisfaction regarding specific features, concerns, and overall tool performance. Built on top of the findings-including how users demand not just intelligent suggestions but also context-aware, customizable, and resource-efficient interactions-we propose five practical implications and suggestions to guide the enhancement of AI coding assistants that satisfy user needs.

The trustworthiness of machine learning has emerged as a critical topic in the field, encompassing various applications and research areas such as robustness, security, interpretability, and fairness. The last decade saw the development of numerous methods addressing these challenges. In this survey, we systematically review these advancements from a data-centric perspective, highlighting the shortcomings of traditional empirical risk minimization (ERM) training in handling challenges posed by the data. Interestingly, we observe a convergence of these methods, despite being developed independently across trustworthy machine learning subfields. Pearl's hierarchy of causality offers a unifying framework for these techniques. Accordingly, this survey presents the background of trustworthy machine learning development using a unified set of concepts, connects this language to Pearl's causal hierarchy, and finally discusses methods explicitly inspired by causality literature. We provide a unified language with mathematical vocabulary to link these methods across robustness, adversarial robustness, interpretability, and fairness, fostering a more cohesive understanding of the field. Further, we explore the trustworthiness of large pretrained models. After summarizing dominant techniques like fine-tuning, parameter-efficient fine-tuning, prompting, and reinforcement learning with human feedback, we draw connections between them and the standard ERM. This connection allows us to build upon the principled understanding of trustworthy methods, extending it to these new techniques in large pretrained models, paving the way for future methods. Existing methods under this perspective are also reviewed. Lastly, we offer a brief summary of the applications of these methods and discuss potential future aspects related to our survey. For more information, please visit http://trustai.one.

Evaluation of large language models (LLMs) for code has primarily relied on static benchmarks, including HumanEval (Chen et al., 2021), which measure the ability of LLMs to generate complete code that passes unit tests. As LLMs are increasingly used as programmer assistants, we study whether gains on existing benchmarks translate to gains in programmer productivity when coding with LLMs, including time spent coding. In addition to static benchmarks, we investigate the utility of preference metrics that might be used as proxies to measure LLM helpfulness, such as code acceptance or copy rates. To do so, we introduce RealHumanEval, a web interface to measure the ability of LLMs to assist programmers, through either autocomplete or chat support. We conducted a user study (N=213) using RealHumanEval in which users interacted with six LLMs of varying base model performance. Despite static benchmarks not incorporating humans-in-the-loop, we find that improvements in benchmark performance lead to increased programmer productivity; however gaps in benchmark versus human performance are not proportional -- a trend that holds across both forms of LLM support. In contrast, we find that programmer preferences do not correlate with their actual performance, motivating the need for better, human-centric proxy signals. We also open-source RealHumanEval to enable human-centric evaluation of new models and the study data to facilitate efforts to improve code models.