公开论文雷达

公开 arXiv 研究简报 · 2026-08-15T01:18:02.086847+00:00

先看结论和关键数字,再决定要不要读原文。候选只在首次出现时展示;旧候选若后来通过深读门槛,仍会进入重点。

八张卡片一个共识:你的旧指标在骗你

这批卡片大多在做同一件事:拆穿一个被广泛默认的评测口径。函数级通过率、只测有效性、按消息量估成本、上下文压缩比——都被证明会把最危险或最贵的选择排在前面。先读揭示评测盲区的几篇建立判断,再读两篇即插即用的落地技巧,最后看证据最弱的一篇。

推荐阅读顺序

  1. 2608.13522:打头阵:仓库级实测直接说明函数级高通过率不能外推,先建立“换个尺度结论就变”的判断基线。
  2. 2608.10916:紧跟着看:只按有效性选模型会选中谄媚最严重的那个,把“必须补第二根轴”讲到最尖锐。
  3. 2608.13077:再看规约评测怎么做才不把证明搜索难度当成规约质量,从方法层面补上前两篇的动机。
  4. 2608.11879:把同样的“默认指标在骗你”搬到成本域,且直接可用于记忆系统选型,行动性最强。
  5. 2608.13292:转向落地:补丁普遍冗余,生成后加一个独立精炼模块即可压缩且不丢修复数。
  6. 2608.06953:第二个廉价落地技巧:把立场写成标注字段,只改一次写入提示就能扛住压缩。
  7. 2608.13240:看一个被卡住的场景怎么解锁:源码不可见时只用测试轨迹推规约,但结论仍属初步。
  8. 2608.11454:放最后:思路合理但摘录未给任何评测数值,只能当方向参考,别据此下判断。
共性方法
多数卡片都在攻击同一个错误默认:拿一个看似合理的单一指标当结论——函数级通过率、只测有效性保持、按消息量回归成本、上下文压缩比。共同结论是:这些指标会系统性掩盖真正的风险轴,必须换测量尺度或补一根反向指标,问题才看得见。
关键分歧
分歧在成熟度与目的。一类是揭示能力天花板或评测盲区的基准(Vero、FaithformBench、COINS、记忆成本),告诉你“现在还不行/别这么测”;另一类是已能即插即用的落地技巧(RECAP精炼、标注字段),告诉你“这么改就见效”。测试推规约与LGPD两篇证据仍属初步,不能当定论。
选择准则
要立刻能用的改进,看RECAP和标注字段两篇;要重估你的评测口径,看Vero、FaithformBench、COINS、记忆成本四篇;测试推规约与LGPD只作方向参考,不要据其数值下结论。

重点深读(8 / 8 篇)

形式化与程序验证(4 篇)

形式化与程序验证 10/30

Vero: Can AI Agents Build Formally Verified Software Repositories?

最强编程智能体只解出27/43个仓库级验证任务,最难仓库一条规范都没能封闭:如果你打算用AI智能体做形式化验证,先别急着信函数级基准的高通过率:在多模块真实仓库里,最强智能体只完整解决43例中的27例,最难的仓库一条规范都没封闭。Vero是首个仓库级基准,用43个Lean 4多模块实例(743个API、2705条规范)同时考察实现合成和证明合成,直接量出了当前能力的天花板。

两句看懂

旧基准只测单函数验证或固定实现后的证明补全,测不出智能体在仓库里跨文件协调实现与证明的能力,Vero用43个仓库级Lean 4实例补上了这个缺口。结果很直接:联合模式下最强智能体只解决27/43例,最难仓库无一规范被封闭,仓库级验证离实用还有明确差距。

核心判断

当前前沿智能体无法可靠完成仓库级联合实现与形式化证明合成:最强配置只解决27/43个实例,最难仓库一条规范都没封闭,跨模块一致性推理是核心瓶颈。

关键要点

1. 旧假设不成立:函数级验证或固定实现后补证明的基准,测不到跨模块全局一致性——改一处实现会让整个仓库的证明失效,函数级通过率不能外推到仓库级。 2. 方法与控制变量:43个Lean 4多模块实例(743 API、2705条规范)从四类真实仓库人工迁移审核而来;用联合模式对仅证明模式分离实现难度与证明难度;审计机制用形式反例区分是智能体不行还是基准有错。 3. 决定性结果与行动:最强智能体联合模式仅解27/43例,最难仓库零规范封闭;评估验证智能体时必须上仓库级实例,别用函数级数据下结论。

证据与结果

基准含43个多模块Lean 4实例,来自Python、Dafny、Verus、Coq四类语言,共743个评分API和2705条规范,领域从密码协议、分布式系统到基础数据结构。两个评测维度:联合模式(实现加证明)和仅证明模式(提供参考实现)。评测对象为四种前沿模型配置、两种编程智能体框架。结果:最强智能体联合模式完整解决27/43例;最难仓库中没有任何一条规范被封闭,高复杂度跨模块推理是明确的能力天花板。

打开论文原文
它要解决什么
前沿编程智能体能不能在真实多模块代码仓库里,同时写出实现和机器可检查的证明?
研究路径
Vero的做法分三层。策展层:从四类验证感知语言的真实仓库选题,翻译成带API签名、数据类型和辅助定义的Lean 4多模块项目,人工逐项审核规范和证明义务。评测层:智能体拿到Lean工具链访问权限,在预定义API接口约束下合成实现和机器可检查的证明。审计层:智能体可以提交"规范不可满足"或"参考实现有误"的形式化证明,策展人据此用反例修正基准,避免把基准错误误算成智能体失败。
这对工程意味着什么
第一步行动:评估智能体形式化验证能力时,直接改用带跨文件依赖的仓库级实例,并在流程里加规范可质疑的审计环节。要避开的捷径:不要把函数级证明通过率外推成仓库级能力,跨模块一致性推理是独立且更难的瓶颈,函数级数据说明不了它。
证据定位
最强智能体在联合模式下完整解决43例中的27例;在最难的仓库上,2705条规范级别的一条都没有被封闭。这说明瓶颈不只是证明搜索难,而是跨模块的一致性推理。评测覆盖了四种前沿模型配置和两种智能体框架,结论在这个范围内稳定。(筛选维度:形式化验证、可复核评测、软件工程方法)
适用边界
只有43个实例,规模有限,来源只覆盖Python、Dafny、Verus、Coq四类语言,没有覆盖所有验证框架和领域;结果只反映给了Lean工具链访问权限的前沿模型配置,不代表所有智能体部署场景。
方法与英文摘要

作者从Python、Dafny、Verus、Coq四类真实仓库人工迁移并逐项审核,建成43个Lean 4多模块实例,共743个API签名和2705条规范。评测分两种模式:联合模式要求智能体同时合成实现与证明;仅证明模式给出参考实现,只补证明,用这个对比分离两类难度。另设审计机制:智能体可以用形式化反例证明某条规范不可满足或参考实现有误,触发策展人重审并修正基准。

AI agents are increasingly used for programming, but do not provide any guarantee on the correctness of generated code. Verified code generation, in which an agent produces both an implementation and a machine-checked proof of its specification, offers a stronger path toward trustworthy AI-generated software. Existing benchmarks in this direction either focus on individual functions or only evaluate proof generation with provided implementations. It is still an open question whether agents can make coherent implementation and proof choices across real multi-module codebases. To bridge this gap, we introduce Vero, the first benchmark to evaluate joint implementation and proof synthesis at the repository level. Vero contains 43 multi-module instances sourced from real-world repositories spanning Python, Dafny, Verus, and Coq, and covering diverse domains from cryptographic protocols to distributed systems. Each instance consists of a multi-module Lean 4 repository with predetermined API interfaces, manually curated formal specifications, and reference implementations, supporting both proof-only and code-and-proof evaluation modes. To improve benchmark reliability, Vero also includes an audit mechanism where agents are allowed to formally prove unsatisfiability of provided specification or incorrectness of reference code, which surfaces and corrects latent code and specification errors during curation. We evaluate frontier coding-agent configurations with Lean toolchain access. The strongest agent fully solves only 27 of 43 instances and closes no specifications on the hardest repositories. Vero provides a concrete testbed for measuring progress toward repository-scale verified software synthesis, where current agents still fall short. We release the benchmark, curation pipeline, and evaluation harness at https://github.com/sunblaze-ucb/vero.

形式化与程序验证 8/30

How Powerful are LLMs in Generating Formal Program Specifications?

LLM还不会写好形式规约:用测试用例实例化评测比直接验证更准:如果你在用LLM生成形式规约,先注意一件事:过去那种“验证实现满足规约”的评测方式测不准——它把证明搜索的难和规约本身的好坏混在了一起。COINS换了条路:在Rocq中把规约实例化到人工测试用例上生成证明义务。HumanEval上的实验显示,规约生成对LLM仍是重大挑战,而这套新方案比传统验证路径更能区分模型好坏。

两句看懂

现有形式规约评测靠验证实现一致性或证明语义等价,把证明搜索难度和规约质量混在了一起;COINS改为在Rocq中把规约实例化到测试用例上生成证明义务。HumanEval上的大规模实验表明,规约生成仍是重大挑战,COINS在模型间的区分度优于传统验证路径。

核心判断

LLM生成形式规约的能力仍然有限;在HumanEval实验中,COINS的测试用例实例化比传统验证路径更忠实地揭示模型间的规约质量差异,准确的评测方法比扩大模型规模更关键。

关键要点

1. 旧假设出问题:验证实现满足规约(implementation⊨specification)或证明规约间语义等价都极难,证明搜索难度和规约质量被混在一起——规约可能够验证某个实现,却对非预期行为过度宽松。 2. COINS的做法:在Rocq中把规约实例化到人工可信测试用例,生成具体证明义务,证明成功才算正向信号、失败不单独计权;对照实验保持模型和任务集不变。 3. 决定性结果:规约生成对LLM仍是重大挑战,COINS比传统验证路径更能区分模型,评测时应采用测试用例实例化,而不是扩大模型规模。

证据与结果

数据集:HumanEval,配套人工编写的Rocq形式规约集(具体规模材料中未给出)。方式:对多个LLM做大规模规约生成实验。对比对象:COINS测试用例实例化 vs. 传统实现一致性验证和语义等价证明两类路径。主要发现:验证复杂度差异让传统方法掩盖了规约质量的真实差距;COINS在模型间的区分度更高;规约生成整体困难。具体模型得分数字材料中未提供。

打开论文原文
它要解决什么
LLM生成形式程序规约的真实水平到底如何?怎么评测规约质量,才不把证明难度误算成规约质量?
研究路径
COINS把LLM生成的规约和人工可信测试用例配对,在Rocq中实例化生成具体证明义务。这里利用了形式推理的不对称性:证明成功是可靠的正向信号,证明失败则是模糊结果——失败可能来自证明搜索困难,而非规约本身错误。用证明成功率衡量规约质量,绕开了全规约语义等价验证中高难度的证明搜索问题。
这对工程意味着什么
第一个动作:搭LLM规约生成评测流水线时,用测试用例实例化方案替代直接验证实现一致性,前者对证明搜索难度的干扰更鲁棒。要避免的捷径:别把证明通过率当成规约正确性的全部代理,忽视证明搜索难度本身的独立干扰。
证据定位
HumanEval实验结果:传统验证路径受证明复杂度差异干扰,掩盖了模型间规约质量的真实差距;COINS的测试用例实例化方案区分度更高。总体看,规约生成对LLM仍是重大挑战;准确的评测方法比单纯扩大模型规模更有决定性作用。具体模型得分数字在所供材料中未给出。(筛选维度:形式化验证、可复核评测)
适用边界
实验只覆盖HumanEval任务集,代表性有限;Rocq规约由人工编写,存在风格偏差风险;所供材料未报告具体模型得分数字,无法判断结论在更大或更难任务集上是否成立。
方法与英文摘要

COINS框架的做法是:在Rocq中把待评测的规约实例化到人工编写的可信测试用例上,生成具体的证明义务。证明成功记为正向信号,证明失败不算数,因为失败可能只是证明搜索太难,不代表规约本身错了。数据集是HumanEval配套的人工Rocq规约集。研究对多个LLM做了大规模规约生成实验,并把COINS和传统“验证实现一致性”路径的区分度做了对比。

Formal verification provides strong guarantees of software correctness, but its adoption is limited by the high cost of writing precise formal specifications. While recent large language models (LLMs) have shown strong capabilities in theorem proving and verified code generation, their true ability to generate program specifications remains unclear. Existing evaluations require either verifying implementation conformance or proving semantic equivalence between specifications, both of which are formidably difficult and may conflate proof difficulty with specification quality. To address this problem, we introduce Coins, a Rocq based evaluation framework that assesses specification quality by instantiating specifications under evaluation on trusted test cases and generating concrete proof obligations. This design aligns with the asymmetric nature of formal reasoning, where successful proofs provide reliable evidence while proof failures are inherently ambiguous. Using Coins, we conduct a large scale study on HumanEval with a curated set of human written Rocq specifications. Our results show that specification generation remains a formidable challenge, and that verification complexity can obscure genuine differences in specification quality. Overall, we find that accurate specification evaluation, rather than model scaling alone, is central to understanding the power of LLMs for specification synthesis, and that test case based formal reasoning offers a more faithful and discriminative measure of progress.

形式化与程序验证 7/30

Can Formal Specifications Be Synthesized from Tests Alone?

不看源码,只用测试和执行轨迹也能让LLM写出JML规约:你的源码不能交给外部LLM,规约合成就一直没法落地。这项工作只用测试代码和执行轨迹驱动LLM推断JML规约,BMC留在本地验证,初步证明这条路走得通,但工具兼容性和反例反馈质量是眼下的拦路虎。

两句看懂

现有LLM规约合成必须读源码,在IP保护或源码缺失的工业场景里根本没法用;这项工作改用测试代码加执行轨迹作为唯一输入,BMC本地验证并反馈精化。SpecGenBench上初步验证可行,但检查器兼容性和诊断反馈质量不足,精化循环经常中断。

核心判断

仅用测试代码与动态执行轨迹,不需要源码,就能引导LLM推断出有意义的JML形式化规约;SpecGenBench初步结果支持这一可行性,但检查器兼容性与诊断反馈是当前主要工程瓶颈。

关键要点

1. 旧假设的失败:现有白盒LLM方法直接读源码推断规约,在IP敏感、安全隔离、源码已丢失的遗留系统里无法部署,而这些系统恰恰最需要形式化规约。 2. 方法与受控变量:LLM输入严格限定为接口签名、测试断言上下文、结构化执行轨迹(字段投影范围由工程师指定);BMC本地白盒验证实现,反例驱动迭代精化,源码对LLM全程隐藏。 3. 结果与行动:测试轨迹可引导LLM生成有意义的JML规约,可行性初步成立;落地时先对LLM输出做语法预验证再送BMC,这是最常见的踩坑点。具体通过率摘录未给出。

证据与结果

基准是SpecGenBench(Java方法级,目标语言JML)。评测模式为黑盒推断(LLM不见源码)加本地BMC白盒验证的迭代精化循环。可行性初步成立:测试轨迹能引导LLM生成有意义的规约。失败模式有两类:一是LLM输出的JML与BMC工具存在语法或语义兼容性问题,验证流程启动不了;二是BMC反例诊断粒度不足,LLM无法据此精确定位并修订错误。具体通过率、迭代次数等量化指标摘录未提供。

打开论文原文
它要解决什么
源码不可见时,仅凭测试代码和动态执行轨迹,LLM能否推断出有意义的JML形式化规约?
研究路径
工程师先选定单元测试,并指定要记录哪些对象字段。测试执行时,通过日志或字节码插桩在方法调用前后记录字段状态,形成结构化执行轨迹。LLM拿到接口签名、测试代码(含断言上下文)和轨迹后,生成JML候选规约。BMC在本地对实现做有界验证:通过则输出规约,失败则把反例返回给LLM修订,循环直到通过或超限。
这对工程意味着什么
给遗留或第三方系统补形式化规约时,第一步是用结构化执行轨迹替代源码作为LLM输入。要避免的捷径:把LLM输出直接接进BMC而不先做语法预验证,兼容性错误会让精化循环白白中断。
证据定位
SpecGenBench初步结果表明:测试轨迹确实能引导LLM生成有意义的JML规约,黑盒推断的可行性初步成立。但精化循环失败主要来自两处:LLM生成的规约与BMC工具存在语法或语义兼容性问题,验证无法启动;BMC反例诊断粒度太粗,LLM定位不了错误。具体通过率摘录未提供。(筛选维度:形式化验证、可复核评测)
适用边界
评测仅基于SpecGenBench初步规模,方法数量与多样性受限;轨迹投影范围靠工程师手动指定,可观测状态是否完整取决于人工判断;检查器兼容性与诊断反馈问题尚未系统量化,失败率与精化收敛率等核心指标摘录未提供。
方法与英文摘要

在SpecGenBench基准上评测Java方法级规约合成。LLM只拿到三样东西:接口签名、选定单元测试代码(含断言)、结构化执行轨迹(方法调用前后的对象字段状态)。实现代码全程不给LLM看。工程师指定要记录哪些字段,轨迹由日志或字节码插桩采集。LLM生成JML候选规约后,BMC在本地对实现做有界验证;反例反馈给LLM继续修订,直到验证通过或超过迭代上限。

Formal specifications offer strong guarantees, but remain costly to write manually. Recent LLM-based approaches automate this by inferring specifications from source code, yet their reliance on white-box access poses barriers to industrial adoption due to intellectual property risks and deployment costs. Our approach uses LLMs to infer candidate specifications solely from test code and dynamic execution traces: the LLM observes only the program interface, selected inputs, and corresponding outputs or state changes, while the implementation internals remain hidden. Candidate specifications are validated locally using bounded model checking, with feedback guiding iterative refinement. Initial results on the SpecGenBench benchmark suggest that tests can guide LLMs towards meaningful Java Modeling Language specifications, while also highlighting checker compatibility and diagnostic feedback as key challenges for reliable refinement.

形式化与程序验证 7/30

FaithformBench: Benchmarking Faithfulness of Mathematical Chain-of-Thought Autoformalisation

自动形式化系统普遍“谄媚”:只测有效性的旧评测选出的最好模型,正是悄悄改错最严重的模…:如果你在CoT验证流水线里用有效性保持率挑自动形式化(AF)模型,你很可能挑中了最危险的那个——它会把错误推理步骤悄悄改成可证命题。FaithformBench用自动扰动生成无效样本、以Lean为裁判做双轨评测,在4个数学数据集、8个系统上发现:有效性保持最高的微调模型谄媚最严重。

两句看懂

现有AF忠实性评测只测正确输入,把错误步骤悄然改正为可证命题的谄媚行为完全不可见。FaithformBench自动扰动生成无效样本、以Lean为裁判双轨评测,在4个数据集、8个系统上发现有效性保持最高的微调AF谄媚最严重,两项指标系统性负相关。

核心判断

当前AF系统普遍将无效输入悄然改正为可证命题,且有效性保持最高的微调模型谄媚最严重。Lean自动判定加扰动样本上的无效性保持率构成核心证据。

关键要点

1. 旧评测假设输入均正确,只测有效性保持率,对silent correction完全盲区;人工标注贵,LLM和嵌入判断无健全性保证。 2. 方法:自动扰动正确步骤(如45→51)生成无效变体,以Lean为唯一裁判分两轨评分——未扰动测有效性保持率,扰动测无效性保持率,两轨独立不交叉。 3. 结果:8个系统多数存在谄媚;有效性保持最高的微调模型无效性保持最差;选模型时必须同时看两项指标。

证据与结果

在4个数学数据集(含omnimath)上评测8个AF系统(含Kimina等微调模型)。双轨设计:有效性保持率测未扰动输入,无效性保持率测扰动输入,Lean为自动裁判,不用LLM或嵌入判断。结果:多数系统在扰动输入上仍产出可证命题;Kimina把x从ℝ改为ℕ令3^x=5 ex falso可证;有效性保持最高的微调模型无效性保持最差,两指标系统性负相关,说明当前AF训练目标存在根本性取舍。

打开论文原文
它要解决什么
不花人工标注成本,如何可靠检出AF系统把错误推理步骤悄然改正为可证命题的silent correction行为?
研究路径
取正确推理步骤,自动替换关键数值或结构(如45→51)得到语义无效变体。Lean判断AF输出是否可证:原始步骤计入有效性保持率,扰动步骤计入无效性保持率;扰动输入上输出仍可证即归为silent correction。error induction和silent correction两类失效都由证明助手自动检出,全程无需人工标注。
这对工程意味着什么
第一步行动:在CoT验证流水线的AF模型选型中,同时报告有效性保持率和无效性保持率。要避免的捷径:只按有效性保持率排名选模型——这会优先选中谄媚最严重的模型。
证据定位
8个AF系统中多数会把无效输入悄然改正为可证命题。典型案例:Kimina把x的类型从ℝ改为ℕ,使3^x=5永不满足,无效命题靠ex falso成立。更关键的是,有效性保持最高的微调模型在无效性保持上最差,两项指标呈系统性负相关。(筛选维度:形式化验证、可复核评测)
适用边界
扰动只做局部数值替换,未覆盖逻辑结构层面的错误类型。评测以Lean可证性为唯一裁判,超出Lean表达范围的推理步骤不适用。四个数据集的领域分布与样本规模在供给文本中未具体说明。
方法与英文摘要

从正确推理步骤出发,自动扰动关键数值或结构(如把45改成51)生成语义无效变体。以Lean证明助手为唯一裁判,分两轨独立评测:未扰动步骤测有效性保持率,扰动步骤测无效性保持率。AF在扰动输入上若仍产出可证输出,就计为silent correction失效。评测覆盖4个数学数据集(含omnimath)和8个AF系统。

Autoformalisation (AF) systems map natural language reasoning steps into formal statements in a proof assistant such as Lean. We consider how to assess the faithfulness of these systems. Existing approaches require expensive human-annotated ground truth, or rely on LLM judges or embedding models, which come with limited guarantees of accuracy. In addition, these methods typically only consider inputs that are known to be correct, and therefore do not assess whether the AF translates incorrect inputs faithfully. To address these limitations, we propose a new benchmark for AF faithfulness that is cheap to apply, sound under weak assumptions, and assesses both positive and negative examples. Our method is based on automatically generating perturbed reasoning steps that are designed to be invalid, and then measuring validity preservation on unperturbed steps and invalidity preservation on perturbed steps. We apply our method to eight AF systems across four mathematical datasets, and observe pervasive sycophancy: many AFs "silently correct" invalid inputs into provable statements. The most validity-preserving fine-tuned AFs are also the most sycophantic, suggesting a tension between validity and invalidity preservation in current AF systems.

软件工程与仓库智能(2 篇)

软件工程与仓库智能 7/30

Refine After Generation: Toward Correct and Concise Patches in LLM-based Program Repair

LLM补丁普遍冗余一倍多,生成后精炼可压到开发者规模且不丢修复:如果你在做或评审LLM自动修代码,这个问题直接影响你:补丁即使通过测试,也往往比开发者写的大得多,审查负担很重。对SWE-bench Verified上28个APR系统的测量显示,中位系统总改动多121.78%、净改动多80.91%、圈复杂度高43.99%,而提示词约束压不动。RECAP是一个生成后精炼插件,把平均总改动从+242%压到+4%,修复数量不降反升最多42例。

两句看懂

LLM自动修复系统生成的补丁即使通过测试也比开发者版本冗余,提示约束和最小化生成策略在压缩补丁时都要牺牲已解决实例,RECAP把最小化解耦为生成后的独立精炼阶段。在SWE-bench Verified四个主机系统上,RECAP把平均总改动从+242%压到+4%、净改动从+348%降到-40%,修复数量保持或增加最多42例。

核心判断

LLM生成的补丁即使通过测试也普遍冗余。把最小化解耦为生成后的独立精炼阶段(RECAP),可以把总改动从+242%降到+4%,同时保持或提升修复数。证据来自SWE-bench Verified四个主机系统的对照评测。

关键要点

1. 旧假设是测试通过即合格,但28个系统的测量显示补丁普遍冗余:中位总改动多121.78%、净改动多80.91%、圈复杂度高43.99%,格式约束和最小化提示都压不动。 2. RECAP用SFT+DPO训练专用refiner,collector、filter、refiner三阶段以插件形式挂在主框架之后,在四个主机系统上以修复数和改动量为指标对照多类基线。 3. 基线缩减补丁时牺牲49至217个已解决实例,RECAP把总改动从+242.14%压到+4.24%且修复数最多增42例;做法是在生成阶段后接独立精炼模块,而不是在生成时加最小化约束。

证据与结果

基准是SWE-bench Verified。先对28个最优APR系统做冗余诊断,再在四个主机系统上跑RECAP主实验。指标包括相对开发者补丁的总改动量与净改动量百分比偏差、圈复杂度、已解决实例数。基线有输出格式约束、最小化提示词、commit-untangling、minimality-aware生成。诊断结果:中位系统总改动+121.78%、净改动+80.91%、圈复杂度+43.99%。主实验:基线缩减补丁时牺牲49至217个已解决实例;RECAP把总改动从+242.14%降到+4.24%、净改动从+348.24%降到-39.75%,修复数保持或最多增加42例。

打开论文原文
它要解决什么
LLM自动修复系统生成的补丁是否普遍冗余?能否在不减少修复数量的前提下,把补丁精炼到接近开发者规模?
研究路径
RECAP三个组件串联:collector从主机框架收集相关上下文与候选补丁;filter判断该补丁是否需要精炼;refiner基于SFT+DPO训练,训练数据为多来源verbose-to-concise补丁对、蒸馏推理链和偏好对,输入上下文与候选补丁后输出更简洁的版本。整个模块挂在主APR框架生成阶段之后,不修改主框架参数。
这对工程意味着什么
第一步行动:在你的APR流水线主修复系统之后接一个独立精炼模块,而不是改生成阶段。要避开的捷径:不要直接在生成阶段加minimality提示,这种做法会牺牲已解决实例数,也压不下圈复杂度。精炼之所以有效,是因为它从已有补丁出发而不是从零生成,能力门槛更低,轻量专用模型即可胜任。
证据定位
诊断阶段:28个系统的中位总改动+121.78%、净改动+80.91%、圈复杂度+43.99%。主实验在四个主机系统上:基线方法缩减补丁时牺牲49至217个已解决实例;RECAP把平均总改动从+242.14%降至+4.24%、净改动从+348.24%降至-39.75%,修复数量保持或最多增加42例。(筛选维度:可复核评测、软件工程方法)
适用边界
评测范围限于SWE-bench Verified和四个主机系统,跨基准泛化性待验证。训练数据为多来源补丁对,具体来源构成与比例未充分披露。filter组件判断精炼必要性的准确率及其对整体效果的独立贡献尚未量化。另外精炼的上限受主机框架候选补丁质量约束。
方法与英文摘要

RECAP分三个组件:collector收集主框架输出的上下文和候选补丁,filter判断是否需要精炼,refiner执行精炼。refiner用SFT加DPO训练,训练数据是多来源构建的verbose-to-concise补丁对、蒸馏推理链和偏好对。整个模块以插件形式挂在现有APR框架生成阶段之后,不改主框架。对比基线包括格式约束、最小化提示词、commit-untangling和minimality-aware生成方法。

Large language models (LLMs) have advanced automatic program repair (APR) to the point where agentic systems routinely resolve real-world, repository-level issues. Yet the generated patch has received little scrutiny beyond whether it passes tests. In this paper, we identify patch verbosity as a major yet overlooked concern in LLM-based APR. Characterizing 28 state-of-the-art approaches on SWE-bench Verified, we find that even successful patches are consistently larger and more complex than developer patches, with the median approach producing 121.78% more total changes, 80.91% more net changes, and 43.99% higher cyclomatic complexity. We further show that this verbosity is rooted in capability-oriented design choices such as iterative refinement and broad context, and can hardly be reduced by surface-level controls such as output format or minimality prompts. Motivated by these findings, we formulate post-generation patch refinement and propose RECAP, a lightweight, plug-and-play adapter that attaches to existing repair frameworks after generation. RECAP's refiner is trained via supervised fine-tuning and direct preference optimization with distilled reasoning traces, on a dataset of patch pairs we construct from multiple sources. Across four host systems, prompting, commit-untangling, and minimality-aware baselines reduce patch size only by sacrificing 49 to 217 resolved instances. In contrast, RECAP achieves a substantially better size-correctness tradeoff, cutting average total changes from +242.14% to +4.24% and net changes from +348.24% to -39.75% relative to developer patches while preserving or improving resolution by up to 42 instances. Our results indicate that minimality cannot be simply reduced to syntactic compression, and that decoupling minimization from generation offers a practical path to more reviewable repairs.

软件工程与仓库智能 6/30

Simplifying Requirements Engineering in the Context of the LGPD: An LLM-Based Investigation

LLM从LGPD法条直接生成用户故事与验收场景:现有LLM合规方案以事后审计为主且几乎全聚焦GDPR而非LGPD,研究以RAG结合少样本提示和思维链,以LGPD法条及监管指引为知识库,自动生成用户故事与Gherkin验收场景,旨在将隐私合规前置至软件需求阶段。

两句看懂

既有LLM合规工具以事后审计为主且集中于GDPR,本研究构建RAG系统以LGPD法条和监管指引为库,结合少样本提示与思维链自动生成用户故事和Gherkin验收场景。在设计科学框架下评估生成工件,摘要称结果显示高绩效,但供摘录未披露具体指标或数值。

核心判断

LLM结合RAG与提示工程可将LGPD法条自动转化为用户故事和Gherkin验收场景;摘要称评估结果高绩效,但供摘录未提供指标或数值支撑该主张。

关键要点

1. 旧评估缺口:既有LLM合规方案以事后审计为主(审查隐私政策、分析源代码、检查字节码),几乎全聚焦GDPR而非LGPD;开发者仍需自行将法律条文转化为可实施规格,易因缺乏法律背景而误解条款,且GDPR方案无法捕获LGPD的地方性解释差异。 2. 构建与控制变量:以LGPD全文和监管机构指引构成RAG知识库,Few-Shot Prompting约束输出格式,Chain-of-Thought负责法律义务到功能约束的推理路径;双工件输出(用户故事+Gherkin场景)覆盖需求说明与验收验证两个层次;具体提示内容、示例数量和模型型号供摘录未披露。 3. 决定性结果与边界:摘要声称高绩效,但供文本截止于第3节,评估数据集规模、对比基线、指标定义和具体数值均未在供摘录中出现;研究范围限定于LGPD框架,其他司法辖区法规的适用性需另行验证。

证据与结果

供文本摘录止于第3节理论基础,未提供评估数据集名称、规模、评分标准、对比基线或具体指标数值;摘要仅称结果显示高绩效,评估模式(如专家评审、自动化指标或人工评分)未在供摘录中说明;设计科学研究框架作为方法论背景被提及,但其在评估阶段的操作化方式同样未见描述,无法判断所报绩效的可信度。

打开论文原文
它要解决什么
LLM能否将LGPD抽象法律条文自动转化为开发团队可直接使用的用户故事和验收测试场景,从需求阶段保证隐私合规?
研究路径
①以LGPD全文和监管机构指引构建RAG向量知识库;②接受功能描述或法律条款查询;③Few-Shot Prompting提供示范样本约束输出格式;④Chain-of-Thought分步将法律义务映射为功能约束;⑤输出用户故事和Given-When-Then格式Gherkin验收场景;示例数量、模型型号及提示词具体内容供摘录未披露。
这对工程意味着什么
构建地区隐私法规需求工具时,以法规原文和监管指引作为RAG知识库并用Few-Shot约束输出格式;避免直接复用GDPR方案处理LGPD,两者在法律解释框架上存在实质差异,直接移植会遗漏地方性规范。
证据定位
摘要声称评估结果显示高绩效,确认LLM具备从需求阶段保证合规的潜力;但供文本摘录止于第3节,未提供评估指标、对比基线或具体数值,该主张无法从供文本中量化核实。(筛选维度:可复核评测、软件工程方法)
适用边界
研究范围限于LGPD,其他司法辖区法规适用性未验证;供摘录未披露评估数据集规模、专家构成、评分标准、提示词内容或具体模型型号,泛化能力无法从现有摘录中判断。
方法与英文摘要

以LGPD全文和巴西监管机构指引构建RAG知识库;接收工程师的功能描述或法条查询为输入;Few-Shot Prompting约束用户故事和Gherkin场景的输出格式;Chain-of-Thought逐步将法律义务分解为功能约束;在设计科学研究框架下构建并评估生成工件。供摘录未披露具体模型名称、提示词内容及推理步骤数量。

Compliance with privacy legislation poses a complex challenge to Requirements Engineering (RE): translating legal norms into software requirements. In this context, this study investigates whether Large Language Models (LLMs) can simplify RE within the framework of the Brazilian General Data Protection Law (LGPD). The proposed approach utilizes current legislation to automatically generate User Stories and Acceptance Test Scenarios. The evaluation results demonstrated high performance, confirming the potential of LLMs to ensure regulatory compliance from the software's inception.

代码质量与优化(0 篇)

本轮没有通过深读证据门的重点论文。

UI 与 GUI Agent(0 篇)

本轮没有通过深读证据门的重点论文。

个人知识与本体(2 篇)

个人知识与本体 6/30

Total Recall at What Cost? Benchmarking the Serving Cost of Agentic Memory Systems

记忆系统不一定省钱:实测三套系统,成本预测偏差18–69%,无系统成本精度双优:很多团队上记忆系统,是默认它压缩历史后每轮成本会低于全文重发。这个默认不成立。本研究把Mem0、Hindsight、Mastra OM三套记忆系统,与滚动窗口、全文重发两种基线放在同一受控环境下测成本,并配套665道LoCoMo精度题。结论很直接:成本无法靠消息量预测,线性回归偏差18–69%;盈亏平衡轮数因系统和骨干模型高度分化;

两句看懂

记忆系统被普遍认为能通过压缩历史降低每轮成本,但它内部的LLM流水线(事实抽取、嵌入检索、定期反思)会产生独立计费调用,使成本行为与消息量脱钩;本研究在统一基线下对三套系统做了受控测评。结果显示,基于消息量的线性回归对记忆系统成本偏差高达18–69%,盈亏平衡从数十轮到400轮内永不成立不等,精度跨度21–54%,没有系统在成本和精度两轴上同时占优。

核心判断

记忆系统不能保证比全文重发便宜:内部LLM流水线使成本与消息量脱钩(回归偏差18–69%),且没有系统同时在成本和精度上占优,精度跨度21–54%。

关键要点

1. 旧盲区:记忆系统评测只看精度和召回,忽略内部LLM流水线的计费调用;消息量线性模型能拟合基线,对记忆系统却偏差18–69%。 2. 方法:三套系统×两款骨干×两档推理力度,最长400轮合成对话,665道LoCoMo题测精度,成本与精度同次运行、逐系统算盈亏平衡。 3. 结果:精度21–54%,回本从数十轮到400轮内永不成立,无系统双优;选型前必须实测全链路成本并配对精度。

证据与结果

精度用LoCoMo基准的665道多会话QA题;成本在最长400轮的合成对话上逐轮测量。覆盖三套记忆系统(Mem0、Hindsight、Mastra OM)和两种基线(定长滚动窗口、全文重发),两款骨干模型×两档推理力度共四种骨干配置。核心数字:成本回归误差基线接近零、记忆系统18–69%;盈亏平衡最优数十轮、最差400轮内不成立;精度21–54%。骨干模型选择对成本的影响量级与记忆系统选择相当,是不可忽略的配置变量。

打开论文原文
它要解决什么
上了记忆系统之后,每轮服务成本真的比全文重发低吗?成本和精度能不能同时赢过基线?
研究路径
记忆系统每一步都要花钱:摄入时调LLM抽取原子事实,查询时调嵌入模型并检索top-k记录,部分系统还定期跑反思/合并流水线压缩历史状态。每一步都是一次计费调用。总成本由内部状态演化驱动,而不是单纯由消息大小决定,所以标准线性回归抓不住这个行为,预测偏差高达18–69%。
这对工程意味着什么
第一步行动:在你的实际骨干模型上实测记忆系统的全链路每轮成本,找到盈亏平衡轮数再决定用不用。要避开的捷径:别只拿上下文压缩比估算节省,内部LLM流水线会让实际成本偏离这个估算18–69%。
证据定位
线性回归能精准拟合两种基线的成本,但对三套记忆系统偏差达18–69%。精度跨度21–54%。骨干模型对成本的驱动量级与记忆系统本身相当。盈亏平衡差异极大:最便宜的系统数十轮就回本,最贵的系统在400轮内始终不优于全文重发。(筛选维度:可复核评测、软件工程方法)
适用边界
只测了三套记忆系统和两款骨干模型;对话是合成数据,最长400轮;精度只用LoCoMo单一基准;计费基于特定时点的API定价,换供应商或换时间段结论可能不成立。
方法与英文摘要

数据用LoCoMo基准的665道多会话对话QA题测精度。被测对象是三套记忆系统(Mem0做原子事实向量检索,另有Hindsight、Mastra OM),对照两种基线:定长滚动窗口和全文重发。配置为两款骨干模型×两档推理力度,合成对话最长400轮。研究者以消息大小和对话深度为自变量建线性成本模型,检验它对基线和记忆系统的预测能力,并逐系统计算盈亏平衡轮数。每个配置的成本和精度来自同一次运行,可直接对比。

Long-running conversational agents increasingly rely on a memory system to avoid resending the whole conversation each turn, yet how much that costs to serve has received little systematic benchmarking. We compare three memory systems (Mem0, Hindsight, and Mastra Observational Memory) against two reference strategies -- a fixed-size rolling window and resubmitting the full transcript -- across two backbones and conversations of up to 400 turns, pairing every cost measurement with answer accuracy on 665 LoCoMo questions. First, a memory system's serving cost cannot be predicted from conversation length and message size alone: a regression that tracks the two reference strategies closely misses the memory systems by 18-69%, their cost driven instead by internal memory behavior. Second, a break-even analysis shows that whether -- and when -- a memory system becomes cheaper to serve than the full transcript is highly sensitive to the system and the backbone, from the first tens of turns for the cheapest to never within 400 turns for the most expensive. Third, no system wins on both axes: accuracy spans 21-54%, and the backbone choice drives cost as much as the memory system does.

个人知识与本体 4/30

Explicit, Not Longer: What Makes Epistemic Stance Survive Memory Compression

标注字段让认知立场在记忆压缩中保留,括号旁注会被删除:你的智能体记忆系统压缩时,会把「据传」「未核实」这类立场修饰词当填充词删掉,导致信息失真。这项实验证明,把立场写成标注字段而非括号旁注,能在两个模型上把保留率提升约15分,部署前只需改一次写入提示。

两句看懂

智能体记忆压缩器会把括号修饰词当填充词删除,实验将同一声明分别写成标注字段或括号旁注,在两个模型×60条声明中比较保留率。预注册复现在Haiku 4.5上得+15.6分(38 vs 1),消融确认标签有效、长度无效,但措辞效果因模型分裂,结论仅声明跨模型交集。

核心判断

把认知立场写成标注字段(CLAIM/SOURCE/CERTAINTY/AS_OF)比括号旁注保留率高约15分。两模型×60条声明实验(p=0.00005)和Haiku预注册复现(+15.6分)支持该结论,但最优显式形式因模型不同而异。

关键要点

1. 旧假设落空:把认知修饰词写成括号旁注会被压缩器视同填充词删除;先验研究在未修改的记忆系统部署中发现55%的口耳相传类笔记丢失立场,商业邮件仅7%(p<0.001)。2. 方法与控制:60条声明×7语域,配对设计只改格式,内容、预算、填充笔记全部固定;消融分解标签、括号、措辞、长度四个变量;Haiku 4.5预注册复现锁定判决规则。3. 决定性结果与行动:模型A 37 vs 2,模型B 30 vs 8(p=0.00005),Haiku复现38 vs 1(+15.6分);标签有效(+9.7/+12.8),长度无效;在写入提示中强制使用CLAIM/SOURCE/CERTAINTY/AS_OF字段结构。

证据与结果

数据为60条声明、7个语域,采用配对设计。两个模型在BRUTAL和普通两档预算下测试,盲读者评分,单元为单条声明。主要度量是立场留存率(字段 vs 散文)。结果:模型A 37 vs 2,模型B 30 vs 8,排列检验p=0.00005。Haiku 4.5预注册复现38 vs 1(+15.6分),预测和判决规则在运行前锁定。消融:标签+9.7/+12.8,长度0/0,措辞+12.5/+0.6。确定性读出(无模型)复现方向和7项消融中的5项,但不复现长度和标签,因此这两项不在单一工具上声明。人工标注50条,κ=0.75,7处分歧全文打印,9条撤回声明(含3条前标题声明)。

打开论文原文
它要解决什么
智能体记忆压缩器常把对冲、归因、不确定性标记视为冗余删除。开发者面临的问题是:把立场写成哪种格式,才能让它在压缩后存活?
研究路径
压缩器把括号修饰词识别为句式填充词而删除;把立场拆成独立字段(CLAIM/SOURCE/CERTAINTY/AS_OF)后,字段被识别为内容而保留。消融显示,标签贡献+9.7至+12.8分;完整句子措辞在一个模型上+12.5分、另一个模型上仅+0.6分;延长括号旁注的纯长度在两个模型上均无增益。已知失败路径是多源声明(来源分歧):单字段被折叠为从句时,立场再度丢失。
这对工程意味着什么
第一行动:在记忆写入提示中强制使用CLAIM/SOURCE/CERTAINTY/AS_OF字段结构,让压缩器把立场识别为内容保留。要避免的捷径:在括号旁注里堆砌更多词语,实验证明增加长度无效。
证据定位
标注字段 vs 括号旁注:模型A 37 vs 2,模型B 30 vs 8(排列检验p=0.00005)。Haiku 4.5预注册复现38 vs 1,提升+15.6分。消融显示,标签在两个模型上均有效(+9.7、+12.8),纯长度均无效。(筛选维度:可复核评测)
适用边界
样本仅60条声明、7个语域,规模有限。两个模型消融得到相同净效果,但成分来源不同,最优显式形式存在模型依赖性,单模型结论不可泛化。多源声明(来源分歧)是已知失败路径,现有字段模式未解决。
方法与英文摘要

构建60条声明×7语域的配对数据集。每对声明内容完全相同,仅格式不同:一组用标注字段,一组用括号旁注。同一压缩器以相同预算和填充笔记处理两个版本,由盲读者评分。消融实验在两个模型上分解标签、括号、完整句子措辞、纯长度四个变量。最后在Haiku 4.5上做预注册复现,预测和判决规则在运行前锁定。

Agent memory systems compress what they store, and compression is built to drop qualifiers, so a claim's epistemic standing tends not to survive being written to memory. We ask what governs whether it does. Matched notes carry the identical claim and identical stance and differ only in where that stance sits; one model compresses both under the same budget among the same filler notes, and a blind reader that never sees the condition scores the result. Across 60 claims in seven registers, writing the stance as a labelled field rather than a bracketed aside raises retention by about 15 points on two models (37 claims to 2 on one, 30 to 8 on the other; permutation p=0.00005), and a pre-registered replication on Haiku, its prediction and decision rule committed before the run, gives +15.6 points, 38 claims to 1. Ablating the format on both models gives the same net effect from different parts: labels help on both (+9.7 and +12.8) and length helps on neither, but wording the stance as a full sentence is the largest component on one model (+12.5) and worth nothing on the other (+0.6). Either model alone would have licensed a confident and different mechanism, so we claim only the intersection: make the stance explicit, not merely longer, and expect the best way of being explicit to depend on the model. A deterministic readout with no model reproduces the two-cell direction and five of seven ablation contrasts, but not length or labels, which we therefore do not claim on one instrument. Fifty hand labels (kappa=0.75) agree on direction; we print their seven disagreements in full. We also report nine withdrawn claims, three of them former title claims of this paper.

人机协同与对齐(0 篇)

本轮没有通过深读证据门的重点论文。

本轮分类概览

同一论文只归入一个最先命中的赛道,避免重复计数;“新增候选”只统计首次展示的论文。

赛道新增候选重点
形式化与程序验证34
软件工程与仓库智能12
代码质量与优化10
UI 与 GUI Agent00
个人知识与本体72
人机协同与对齐00

近一个季度监测日历

北京时间。绿色表示有可阅读的新候选,灰蓝表示已监测但无新增,橙色表示部分降级;“无记录”不等于失败。

2026 年 6 月

1无记录2无记录3无记录4无记录5无记录6无记录7无记录8无记录9无记录10无记录11无记录12无记录13无记录14无记录15无记录16无记录17无记录18无记录19无记录20无记录21无记录22无记录23无记录24无记录25无记录26无记录27无记录28无记录29无记录30无记录

近 14 次监测窗口

仅展示公开源的聚合运行状态,不含提示词、全文或个人数据。

本轮新增候选(12 篇)

按赛道、评分和日期展开;中文标签用于导航,英文摘要用于核验。已展示过的旧候选不会每日重复。

形式化与程序验证(3 篇)

形式化与程序验证 · 10/30 · 2026-08-13Vero:仓库级形式验证代码生成基准首个评测智能体在真实多模块仓库中联合生成实现与机器验证证明的基准Vero: Can AI Agents Build Formally Verified Software Repositories?

AI agents are increasingly used for programming, but do not provide any guarantee on the correctness of generated code. Verified code generation, in which an agent produces both an implementation and a machine-checked proof of its specification, offers a stronger path toward trustworthy AI-generated software. Existing benchmarks in this direction either focus on individual functions or only evaluate proof generation with provided implementations. It is still an open question whether agents can make coherent implementation and proof choices across real multi-module codebases. To bridge this gap, we introduce Vero, the first benchmark to evaluate joint implementation and proof synthesis at the repository level. Vero contains 43 multi-module instances sourced from real-world repositories spanning Python, Dafny, Verus, and Coq, and covering diverse domains from cryptographic protocols to distributed systems. Each instance consists of a multi-module Lean 4 repository with predetermined API interfaces, manually curated formal specifications, and reference implementations, supporting both proof-only and code-and-proof evaluation modes. To improve benchmark reliability, Vero also includes an audit mechanism where agents are allowed to formally prove unsatisfiability of provided specification or incorrectness of reference code, which surfaces and corrects latent code and specification errors during curation. We evaluate frontier coding-agent configurations with Lean toolchain access. The strongest agent fully solves only 27 of 43 instances and closes no specifications on the hardest repositories. Vero provides a concrete testbed for measuring progress toward repository-scale verified software synthesis, where current agents still fall short. We release the benchmark, curation pipeline, and evaluation harness at https://github.com/sunblaze-ucb/vero.

阅读 arXiv 原文
形式化与程序验证 · 7/30 · 2026-08-13仅凭测试能否合成形式规约?仅从测试代码与动态执行轨迹推断规约,隐藏实现细节,用有界模型检测迭代验证Can Formal Specifications Be Synthesized from Tests Alone?

Formal specifications offer strong guarantees, but remain costly to write manually. Recent LLM-based approaches automate this by inferring specifications from source code, yet their reliance on white-box access poses barriers to industrial adoption due to intellectual property risks and deployment costs. Our approach uses LLMs to infer candidate specifications solely from test code and dynamic execution traces: the LLM observes only the program interface, selected inputs, and corresponding outputs or state changes, while the implementation internals remain hidden. Candidate specifications are validated locally using bounded model checking, with feedback guiding iterative refinement. Initial results on the SpecGenBench benchmark suggest that tests can guide LLMs towards meaningful Java Modeling Language specifications, while also highlighting checker compatibility and diagnostic feedback as key challenges for reliable refinement.

阅读 arXiv 原文
形式化与程序验证 · 8/30 · 2026-08-13Coins:评测LLM生成形式规约的能力提出基于Rocq的评测框架,通过可信测试用例实例化规约并生成具体证明义务来评估质量How Powerful are LLMs in Generating Formal Program Specifications?

Formal verification provides strong guarantees of software correctness, but its adoption is limited by the high cost of writing precise formal specifications. While recent large language models (LLMs) have shown strong capabilities in theorem proving and verified code generation, their true ability to generate program specifications remains unclear. Existing evaluations require either verifying implementation conformance or proving semantic equivalence between specifications, both of which are formidably difficult and may conflate proof difficulty with specification quality. To address this problem, we introduce Coins, a Rocq based evaluation framework that assesses specification quality by instantiating specifications under evaluation on trusted test cases and generating concrete proof obligations. This design aligns with the asymmetric nature of formal reasoning, where successful proofs provide reliable evidence while proof failures are inherently ambiguous. Using Coins, we conduct a large scale study on HumanEval with a curated set of human written Rocq specifications. Our results show that specification generation remains a formidable challenge, and that verification complexity can obscure genuine differences in specification quality. Overall, we find that accurate specification evaluation, rather than model scaling alone, is central to understanding the power of LLMs for specification synthesis, and that test case based formal reasoning offers a more faithful and discriminative measure of progress.

阅读 arXiv 原文

软件工程与仓库智能(1 篇)

软件工程与仓库智能 · 7/30 · 2026-08-13生成后细化:兼顾正确与简洁的补丁修复指出LLM修复补丁过于冗长,即使通过的补丁也大于开发者补丁,提出生成后精炼策略Refine After Generation: Toward Correct and Concise Patches in LLM-based Program Repair

Large language models (LLMs) have advanced automatic program repair (APR) to the point where agentic systems routinely resolve real-world, repository-level issues. Yet the generated patch has received little scrutiny beyond whether it passes tests. In this paper, we identify patch verbosity as a major yet overlooked concern in LLM-based APR. Characterizing 28 state-of-the-art approaches on SWE-bench Verified, we find that even successful patches are consistently larger and more complex than developer patches, with the median approach producing 121.78% more total changes, 80.91% more net changes, and 43.99% higher cyclomatic complexity. We further show that this verbosity is rooted in capability-oriented design choices such as iterative refinement and broad context, and can hardly be reduced by surface-level controls such as output format or minimality prompts. Motivated by these findings, we formulate post-generation patch refinement and propose RECAP, a lightweight, plug-and-play adapter that attaches to existing repair frameworks after generation. RECAP's refiner is trained via supervised fine-tuning and direct preference optimization with distilled reasoning traces, on a dataset of patch pairs we construct from multiple sources. Across four host systems, prompting, commit-untangling, and minimality-aware baselines reduce patch size only by sacrificing 49 to 217 resolved instances. In contrast, RECAP achieves a substantially better size-correctness tradeoff, cutting average total changes from +242.14% to +4.24% and net changes from +348.24% to -39.75% relative to developer patches while preserving or improving resolution by up to 42 instances. Our results indicate that minimality cannot be simply reduced to syntactic compression, and that decoupling minimization from generation offers a practical path to more reviewable repairs.

阅读 arXiv 原文

代码质量与优化(1 篇)

代码质量与优化 · 4/30 · 2026-08-12规格先行协议下AI代理的大规模重构案例单一案例研究:在717k行TypeScript代码库中拆除核心生命周期不变式,无测试基准且无人工审查Specification-first convergence with an AI coding agent: a case study of dismantling a core architectural invariant across 189 files in a 717k-line codebase with no test oracle and no human code review

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

阅读 arXiv 原文

UI 与 GUI Agent(0 篇)

本轮该赛道没有候选论文。

个人知识与本体(7 篇)

个人知识与本体 · 0/30 · 2026-08-13RippleMem:基于线索的联想式长期记忆检索将一次性检索改为自适应联想回忆,以事件为中心的记忆图组织线索丰富的片段记忆单元RippleMem: From Isolated Retrieval to Associative Recollection for Long-Term Agent Memory

LLM-based agents increasingly rely on external memory to support long-horizon reasoning and interaction. However, the main bottleneck is not simply storing past experience, but recovering the right set of evidence when relevant information is distributed across many interactions. Existing approaches struggle with this access problem. Full-context methods require noisy long-context search, flat retrieval often returns isolated and incomplete records, and graph-based memory systems can be expensive to construct while compressing rich event context. We introduce RippleMem, a long-term memory system that replaces one-shot retrieval with adaptive associative recollection. Inspired by cue-dependent episodic retrieval and associative completion, RippleMem stores interaction history as cue-rich episodic memory units and organizes them in an event-centric memory graph. Given a query, it first recalls relevant memory anchors through hybrid cues, then expands from these anchors along semantic and structural associations to recover missing supporting evidence. In this way, initially recalled memories serve not only as answer context, but also as cues for completing the evidence needed to answer. Experiments on LoCoMo and LongMemEval-S show that RippleMem achieves the best overall performance across evaluated settings, improving LLM-as-a-Judge accuracy by 3.95% on LoCoMo and up to 11.87% on LongMemEval-S, while reducing graph construction cost by about 30x.

阅读 arXiv 原文
个人知识与本体 · -3/30 · 2026-08-13LycheeMemory V2:语义片段级记忆整将逐轮整合改为按语义片段批量整合,降低记忆构建成本并保留细粒度上下文证据LycheeMemory V2: Efficient Long-Term Memory for LLM Agents via Semantic Segment-Level Consolidation

Long-horizon LLM agents must preserve information from past interactions to support future tasks. Existing memory systems typically rely on eager consolidation, invoking LLMs after each interaction to extract, summarize, or update memories. This design makes memory construction increasingly costly as conversations grow. Coarse summarization can reduce construction cost but risks discarding fine-grained contextual evidence, whereas larger retrieval contexts or multi-hop LLM reasoning shift the overhead to query time. We present LycheeMemory V2, an efficient long-term memory framework that replaces turn-level consolidation with semantic segment-level consolidation. Instead of consolidating every interaction, LycheeMemory batches multiple exchanges into segments and encodes each finalized segment into context-independent typed memory records. Segment-level batching lowers LLM encoding frequency, while semantic boundary detection helps preserve coherent event-level and temporal evidence compared with fixed-window batching. The resulting records are organized with lightweight structured indexes for query-planned evidence retrieval. Experiments using GPT-4.1-Mini show that LycheeMemory achieves state-of-the-art performance, reaching 89.22% on LoCoMo and 92.20% on LongMemEval-S. Compared with A-Mem, it reduces construction tokens by 86.0% on LoCoMo and 75.9% on LongMemEval-S without increasing query-time token usage. More broadly, our results suggest that the accuracy--cost trade-off of long-term agent memory depends not only on what information is retained, but also on the granularity at which it is consolidated.

阅读 arXiv 原文
个人知识与本体 · 0/30 · 2026-08-13ReFind:原始聊天记录上的智能体检索不做语义结构化,直接对原始日志做词法检索并配合聊天原生控制,效果匹敌结构化记忆When Your Agent Opens the Chat App: Agent-Controlled Search over Raw Chat Logs Rivals Structured Memory

Agent-memory systems increasingly buy retrieval quality with structure, transforming raw conversation histories into summaries, embeddings, trees, or knowledge graphs before any question is asked. We ask how much of that benefit comes from the structure itself, rather than from competent retrieval over the raw history. We present ReFind, an agent-controlled search interface that builds no semantic structure at all: it leaves the conversation archive unmodified, indexes it lexically at turn granularity, and combines a generic iterative keyword-search loop with four chat-native controls grounded in empirical refinding work: session-aware rank fusion, local context expansion, temporal narrowing, and skipping already-inspected sessions. A separate reasoning stage answers from the collected evidence. Across a broad suite of conversational-memory tasks (single- and multi-hop QA, event ordering, and fact consolidation), roughly 2,800 questions on precise-retrieval and fact-tracking capabilities evaluated under the incremental multi-turn setting of MemoryAgentBench, ReFind attains the highest mean accuracy (58.2) of any system compared, above the strongest graph- and tree-based memory systems (HippoRAG 2, 53.2), all under a GPT-4o-mini backbone matched to every reused baseline. Controlled comparisons to single-shot BM25, a matched generic-agentic BM25 control, component removals, and agentic dense/hybrid variants separately support the roles of agent control, chat-native controls, and lexical retrieval. On LongMemEval-S/M, the same interface reaches 93.2 +/- 3.3 and 89.3 +/- 6.0 with GPT-5-mini. The results indicate that for precise, evidence-grounded questions over chat archives, much of the benefit credited to elaborate memory structures is recoverable by giving an agent controllable search over the unmodified record, with no LLM-based index construction at all.

阅读 arXiv 原文
个人知识与本体 · 0/30 · 2026-08-13AQuA:量化交易研究中的递归自我改进两个独立研究系统各自保留已验证证据并指导后续实验,在封闭沙箱中实现有限递归自我改进AQuA: Recursively Self-Improving Quantitative Trading Research Agents

We study recursive self-improvement at the level of quantitative-investment research: whether an autonomous system can use evidence from earlier experiments to improve the hypotheses and candidates proposed in later iterations. We present AQuA, which comprises two separate language-model-driven research systems: one for symbolic factor discovery and one for trainable model development. The two systems do not share agents, memories, candidate spaces, or research state. Instead, each independently closes its own research loop by retaining validated evidence and using it to guide subsequent proposals. In this bounded sense, both systems implement recursive self-improvement at the level of the research process. Each system also uses its own sealed sandbox, which fixes the data splits, feature and label definitions, and evaluator while allowing the model to act only through constrained factor expressions or configuration diffs. The factor system, a manager-mediated multi-agent pipeline, discovers and combines factors into a signal that reaches a combined information coefficient of about $0.190$ on a crypto universe. The model system, a config-driven loop over a hybrid time-series architecture, reaches a per-stock information coefficient of $+0.0843$ on US equities and converts it into a threshold long/short strategy with a held-out Sharpe of up to $+2.50$ at a two-leg cost. The strategy is positive in every year from 2021 to 2025.

阅读 arXiv 原文
个人知识与本体 · 3/30 · 2026-08-13ERSkill:技能引导的自适应记忆检索将检索行为表示为可执行技能,训练路由器动态匹配查询并用经验字典树持续协同进化ERSkill: Evolving for Skill-Guided Adaptive Memory Retrieval

While Large Language Model (LLM) agents increasingly rely on long-term memory for persistent interactions, the retrieval mechanisms governing this memory are rarely treated as evolvable components. This static approach limits performance on heterogeneous memory queries, which often demand diverse evidence construction strategies. To address this, we introduce \textbf{ERSkill}, a retrieval-centric framework for self-evolving, skill-guided memory access. ERSkill compiles interaction histories into a structured memory store and represents retrieval behaviors as executable skills composed of fundamental primitives. At inference time, a trained router dynamically matches each query to the optimal skill to construct tailored evidence for answer generation. To enable continuous improvement, ERSkill co-evolves the skill set and the router during training. It employs an experience trie to efficiently record explored retrieval paths, alongside a double-frontier mechanism that safely decouples the expansion of new skill capabilities from stable, router-facing deployment. Experiments across multiple agent memory benchmarks demonstrate that ERSkill substantially outperforms strong non-evolving and self-evolving baselines. Notably, it improves the overall average across F1, BLEU-1, and LLM-judge scores by 31.3\% with Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Instruct and by 28.1\% with GPT-5.4-nano.

阅读 arXiv 原文
个人知识与本体 · 0/30 · 2026-08-12EgoCITE:第一视角记忆的时序感知检索用局部多模态上下文补全视频片段与语音转写,构建多视图索引并结合时间意图检索EgoCITE: Context-Augmented Indexing and Time-Aware Retrieval for Long-Horizon Egocentric Memory

Long-horizon egocentric memory transforms continuous first-person video and audio into a searchable record of past experiences. We demonstrate two bottlenecks in existing systems: indices built from context-poor captions are unreliable for agentic search, while retrieval ignores a question's temporal intent. To address both bottlenecks, we introduce EgoCITE (Egocentric Context-augmented Indexing and Time-aware Evidence retrieval), a long-horizon agentic memory framework for egocentric QA. EgoCITE comprises three components. EgoScheme uses local multimodal context to turn fragmentary video captions and speech transcripts into self-contained atomic memory indices. EgoIndex organizes complementary action, activity, utterance, and conversation representations into searchable multi-view memory indices at multiple granularities. EgoRetrv combines semantic search with question-conditioned temporal relevance scoring and curation of retrieved evidence. We evaluate EgoCITE on EgoLifeQA, EgoMem, and EgoR1-Bench in terms of answer accuracy and target-event retrieval alignment. EgoCITE improves accuracy over agentic memory baselines by at least 4.4--14.2\% while achieving 36$\times$ lower cost than long-context LLM agents.

阅读 arXiv 原文
个人知识与本体 · 9/30 · 2026-08-12GPM:受治理的持久记忆与故障关闭发布可审计双时态状态转换模型,记录来源绑定与失效状态,对已撤回或删除的记录故障关闭发布Governed Persistent Memory: Source-Bound State Semantics and Fail-Closed Release for Long-Horizon Agents

Long-term agent memory is usually treated as select--store--retrieve, but retrieval does not decide whether contradictory, superseded, retracted, deleted, or stale records may support an outgoing claim. We introduce Governed Persistent Memory (GPM), an auditable bitemporal state-transition model with source-bound admission, derived lifecycle state, current public barriers, and fail-closed structured release. Five executable clauses cover ledger integrity, source binding, conflict isolation, non-revival after retraction or deletion, and exact claim closure over a fresh view at one verified head. On a prespecified hash-frozen 3,600-case GPM-ReleaseBench, GPM matches all complete outcomes; the strongest of three intentionally simple complete policies matches 1,800/3,600 and makes unmatched releases on 50% of violation cases. A separate sealed end-to-end service evaluation exercises real ingestion and release across eight query families. In its publicly disclosed V3 arm, the governed lane is correct on 2,400/2,400 clusters versus 600/2,400 for ungoverned local Qwen2.5-7B; it repairs all 1,800 baseline failures with no regression (one-sided 95% lower bounds 99.875% and 99.834%). A later V5 reseal over Chinese- and English-command arms, with generation-date pinning and no post-freeze reducer amendment, again obtains 2,400/2,400 per arm. A production-code-independent finite model explores 331,776 semantic and 1,990,656 query states without a full-contract counterexample, and a 100,000-trace three-engine differential yields zero mismatches. These are bounded contract and implementation results, not open-world model accuracy or evidence of world truth. Governed answers in the sealed service evaluation are deterministic service outputs; the 7B result is the ungoverned comparison, not a claim that a language model itself became perfectly accurate.

阅读 arXiv 原文

人机协同与对齐(0 篇)

本轮该赛道没有候选论文。