公开论文雷达

Visual Regression Tests (VRTs) are widely adopted as a mechanism for detecting unintended visual changes in user interfaces. By design, VRTs operate on rendered pixel output, and the prevailing assumption is that they catch stylistic regressions such as layout shifts, color mismatches, and font alterations. We conduct an empirical analysis of 307 pull requests (PRs) from 103 GitHub repositories that incorporate VRT results via Chromatic, comparing them against 299 PRs that contain image attachments but no VRT (Visual PRs). Quantitatively, VRT-PRs show no significant acceptance-rate difference, but exhibit a 3.8 times longer median resolution time, 10 times more discussion comments, and 1.75 to 4.5 times larger code changes than Visual PRs. VRT results are typically shared around the midpoint of the review process, sustaining ongoing discussion rather than serving only as a final check. Through a card-sorting analysis of 189 VRT-flagged issues, we identify seven defect categories assigned to the analyzed issues: Layout (39.7\%), Appearance (27.5\%), Color (14.8\%), Text (9.5\%), State (6.9\%), Test (6.3\%), and Image (4.2\%). The three most frequent categories are stylistic, while approximately 18.5\% of analyzed issues (35/189) involve non-stylistic origins, including undefined component state (13 cases), content disappearance (17 cases across multiple categories), and visually imperceptible regressions (5 cases). We further document cases in which VRT detected visual regressions originating from code changes in seemingly unrelated files, exposing non-local effects that no targeted test would have been written to catch. These observations indicate that, in addition to its primary role as a stylistic checker, VRT functions as a secondary detector of unintended consequences of code changes, with implications for how VRT should be integrated into the maintenance toolchain.

Students learning to program benefit from access to large numbers of practice problems. Autograders are commonly used to support programming questions by providing quick feedback on submissions. But authoring accurate autograders remains challenging. Autograders are frequently created by enumerating test cases--a tedious process that can produce inaccurate autograders that fail to correctly classify submissions. When authoring accurate autograders is slow, it is difficult to create large banks of practice problems to support beginning programmers. We present solution-generated autograding: a faster, more accurate, and more enjoyable way to create autograders. Our approach leverages a key difference between software testing and autograding: The question author can provide a solution. By starting with a solution, we can eliminate the need to manually enumerate test cases, validate the autograder's accuracy, and evaluate other aspects of submission code quality beyond behavioral correctness. We describe Questioner, an implementation of solution-generated autograding for Java and Kotlin, and share experiences from four years using Questioner to support a large CS1 course: authoring nearly 800 programming questions used by thousands of students to evaluate millions of submissions.

Refactoring improves software maintainability while preserving functional behavior, yet behavior preservation does not imply energy neutrality. Existing studies primarily examine isolated refactorings under fixed or simple workloads, leaving the effects of workload variation, real-world refactoring practices, explanatory factors, and energy regression identification insufficiently understood. We present the first large-scale empirical study of the energy impact of refactoring across two complementary Java benchmarks: a Micro-benchmark, comprising 68 refactoring types evaluated under diverse workloads, and a Practical-benchmark, containing 481 real-world refactoring commits from 430 GitHub projects. Using repeated paired energy measurements, we analyze workload sensitivity, refactoring patterns, explanatory factors, and the effectiveness of metric- and LLM-based regression identification. In the Micro-benchmark, 199 of 384 refactoring-workload pairs (51.8%) exhibit statistically significant energy differences, and 45.3% of refactoring instances change energy-impact classification across workloads. In the Practical-benchmark, only 36 commits (7.5%) show significant energy changes, although two-thirds differ by at least 10%. Refactoring type alone is insufficient to predict energy outcomes, while certain recurring refactoring combinations are associated with energy reductions. Changes in execution time consistently explain energy variation in the controlled benchmark but correlate weakly with energy changes in real-world commits. Our findings highlight the need for workload-diverse evaluation of the energy impact of refactoring; neither existing metric-based approaches nor LLM-based predictors can reliably identify refactoring-induced energy regressions, motivating the development of more accurate techniques for predicting the energy impact of refactoring.

Memory systems have shown promise for improving agent performance, but their potential remains largely unexplored for small language models, which struggle to generate sufficient successful trajectories on their own. We propose Agent Memory Distillation (AMD), a training-free framework that transfers structured knowledge from a large teacher agent to a small student agent through hierarchical memory. AMD constructs three complementary memory types from successful teacher trajectories: Workflow memory encodes task-level strategies, Subtask memory provides concrete behavioral examples at an intermediate granularity, and Function memory captures per-function calling conventions and common pitfalls. Workflow and Subtask memories are injected proactively at the start of each task, while Function memory is retrieved reactively upon tool-calling errors. We evaluate AMD on three tool-use benchmarks using four student models (4B-8B parameters) with GPT-5-mini as the teacher, achieving average accuracy gains of 27.2%p, 11.2%p, and 3.4%p on AppWorld, BFCL V3, and ToolSandbox, while consistently outperforming existing memory-based baselines. Further analysis shows that Subtask memory contributes the largest gains, teacher effectiveness depends on both teacher capability and student compatibility, and 4B-sized students benefit most from AMD.

Object-goal navigation has made substantial progress in semantic perception and exploration, yet persistent memory for multi-object navigation and cross-floor navigation are still commonly addressed separately. We present LifelongCrossNav, a framework for sequential multi-object ObjectNav in unknown multi-floor indoor environments. Within each episode, the agent receives an ordered sequence of object-goal queries while continuously maintaining a shared sparse 3D semantic voxel memory. This memory incrementally accumulates geometric structure, traversability states, and vision-language features, allowing subsequent object-goal queries to retrieve previously acquired scene information without rebuilding the map. To support persistent search across floors, LifelongCrossNav combines support-aware 3D traversability mapping, stair-specific perception, and direction-aware stair traversal. A unified navigation policy coordinates same-floor frontier exploration, live and historical point-of-interest retrieval, stair navigation, and target-object search and approach. We further introduce HM3D-MFMON, a benchmark for sequential Multi-Floor Multi-Object Navigation built on HM3D scenes, including a dedicated subset in which completing the full sequence of object-goal subtasks requires at least one floor transition. Experimental results show that LifelongCrossNav consistently outperforms a representative planar persistent semantic-map baseline on HM3D-MFMON, demonstrating that persistent 3D semantic memory and cross-floor traversability modeling effectively support sequential multi-object navigation in multi-floor environments. Project page: https://flageval-baai.github.io/LifelongCrossNavPage.

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.