公开论文雷达

公开 arXiv 研究简报 · 2026-08-06T01:08:08.420203+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。

评测别只看单点,LLM能力常被高估,先补基础再谈模型

六张卡分两类:一类用更真实基准戳穿单点/顺序评测的乐观——跨PR隐蔽攻击、队列级联合治理、等预算下LLM测TUI都远逊预期;另一类给可落地方法——查询自适应LoRA、数据稀缺下规则胜ML、NL对DSL的SMT一致性核对。先读诊断类立预期,再读方法类找路径。

推荐阅读顺序

  1. 2608.02693:先读:单PR评测把安全能力高估约40个百分点,跨PR隐蔽攻击最能颠覆你对安全水位的直觉
  2. 2608.02685:同为评测陷阱:队列级联合治理最高RDS仅66.6%、324次仅8次全交付,补足PR治理视角
  3. 2608.03743:把更强模型更好证伪:等时间预算下LLM不胜随机,最大增益来自启动参数这类基础工程
  4. 2608.02967:转向解法:统一查询编码器是瓶颈,为每条issue生成LoRA,函数级定位提升13.3%
  5. 2608.03173:另一条解法:标注稀缺时可审计规则框架在量子细粒度子类上持续胜过监督ML
  6. 2608.00396:收尾看最形式化的方案:用SMT核对NL文档与DSL代码是否同义并给出反例
共性方法
多数卡片都在拆穿表面/单点假设:真实场景是跨PR、跨issue异质、跨生态、队列级联合,而单条通过率、行覆盖率、统一编码器或直接上更强模型/监督ML都会高估能力或卡在瓶颈上。共同强调先看端到端真实指标,别被局部信号误导。
关键分歧
两条路线分歧明显:PRWeaver、BulkPR-Bench、TUI是揭短的诊断基准,结论偏别高估现状;HyperFL、量子分类、SIRNA给可落地方法,结论偏针对性适配/规则/形式化即可改善。对更强模型是否有用看法相反——TUI与量子说没用,HyperFL说针对性适配有效。
选择准则
若你评估LLM/智能体在真实多PR、多issue或队列场景的能力:先换掉单点通过率、行覆盖率这类局部指标;别急着上更强模型或监督ML,先补基础——上下文窗口控制、启动参数、关系检测,或改用可审计规则与SMT核对。

重点深读(6 / 6 篇)

形式化与程序验证(1 篇)

形式化与程序验证 6/30

Verifiable Checks for Business Rule Consistency

SIRNA 可自动核对自然语言业务规则与 DSL 代码是否同义,并给出反例:账单、税务、合规系统常同时维护自然语言文档和可执行 DSL;两者一旦语义跑偏,人工审查很难系统发现。SIRNA 的做法是:用 LLM 把 NL 文档转成 SMT 公式并先校验翻译,再把 DSL 等价编码成 SMT,最后交给 SMT 求解器判一致、列反例。

两句看懂

NL 文档与 DSL 代码的语义对齐过去主要靠人工,特殊例外很容易漏掉;SIRNA 把 NL 经 LLM 转成受校验的 SMT 公式,把 DSL 等价编码成 SMT,再由求解器判定并生成反例。在加拿大联邦所得税案例中,它定位到 DSL 对 SIN≥900000000 的零税逻辑未写入 NL 文档,反例为 income=−200/29 时两侧输出 −1 与 0。

核心判断

核心判断:把“受校验的 NL→SMT 翻译”和“DSL 的等价 SMT 编码”交给同一个 SMT 求解器比较,能把文档与代码的语义不一致变成可判定问题,并用反例说明偏差条件;在税务案例中作者报告假阳性与假阴性较基线显著减少。

关键要点

1. 老问题:NL 文档与 DSL 实现靠人工对齐,账单、税务等场景覆盖不全;基线假阳性/假阴性偏高,且缺少反例。 2. 方法与受控检查:LLM 译 NL 成 SMT-LIB 后先过自动推理校验器;DSL 做等价 SMT 编码;求解器判等价,θ 默认 23。 3. 决定性结果与动作:加拿大所得税例中检出 SIN≥900000000 零税例外;income=−200/29 时 −1 对 0;按反例改文档、改代码或标记例外。

证据与结果

评估场景是加拿大联邦所得税成本计算:NL 描述渐进五档税率,DSL 另有 SIN 条件逻辑。系统把结果分成四类:欠规范导致的虚假不一致、需要修的真实偏差、有意差异、一致。定位案例为 DSL 中 special 变量触发 SIN≥900000000 时税额归零,NL 未声明;反例 income=−200/29,NL FinalTaxes=−1,DSL final_tax=0。比较结论只到“较基线显著减少假阳性与假阴性”,未给数值。

打开论文原文
它要解决什么
实际问题是:NL 业务规则文档和 DSL 实现长期并存,如何不靠人工逐条比对,自动发现“文档没说但代码做了”或“文档要求但代码没做”的语义偏差?
研究路径
机制分五步:LLM 先把 NL 规则译成候选 SMT-LIB;自动推理校验器检查这步翻译;DSL 经可靠等价变换得到语义相同的 SMT-LIB;SMT 求解器比较两侧公式是否等价;若不等价,输出具体变量赋值和两侧输出差,并枚举发散条件,让用户决定修文档、修代码或承认为有意例外。
这对工程意味着什么
第一步:挑一个账单或税务规则对,补齐变量规格和取值范围,用默认 θ=23 跑一次 SIRNA,看反例能否复现。要避开的捷径:不要拿 LLM 生成的 SMT 公式直接当标准答案;未校验翻译会把误报或漏报带进最终结论。
证据定位
在加拿大联邦所得税案例中,DSL 用 special 变量让 SIN≥900000000 时税额归零,但 NL 文档没有写这个例外。SIRNA 给出反例:income=−200/29 时,NL 输出 FinalTaxes=−1,DSL 输出 final_tax=0。作者称相较基线假阳性与假阴性显著减少;具体数值未在摘录中提供。(筛选维度:形式化验证、可复核评测)
适用边界
边界要说明白:摘录只给加拿大联邦税务单一领域,泛化未量化;变量规格和取值范围需要人工配置,是前置领域成本;θ 对结果影响未量化;假阳性、假阴性的具体数值未在供给文本中给出。
方法与英文摘要

输入是(NL 文档,DSL 代码)对、变量规格、取值范围和置信阈值 θ,默认 23。配置阶段由 LLM 生成候选 SMT-LIB 公式,再经自动推理校验器检查翻译质量;评估阶段把 DSL 等价变换为 SMT-LIB,由 SMT 求解器比较两侧语义。发现不一致时输出反例,并枚举实现偏离文档的条件。示例领域是加拿大联邦所得税。

Maintaining consistency between natural language documentation of business rules and their evolving internal implementations is a significant challenge in large-scale systems. We present SIRNA, a tool and framework for checking such consistency using SMT solvers. Using the case study of cost calculations in tax domains, we demonstrate a three-part system that combines large language models (LLMs) with formal verification methods. SIRNA translates natural language documentation into candidate SMT formulas using LLMs, followed by checks to validate the translations. Then, corresponding business rules are converted into equivalent SMT representations and validated against the natural language formalizations. Our method is generalizable to domains where business logic exists in both natural language documentation and programmatic implementation. Compared to baseline evaluations, SIRNA significantly reduces the number of false positives and false negatives while offering explainability for its findings.

软件工程与仓库智能(3 篇)

软件工程与仓库智能 7/30

PRWeaver: Evaluating LLM-Based Code Auditors against Long-Horizon Malicious Pull Requests

LLM代码审计器防不住跨PR隐蔽攻击:整窗口审查检测率仅16–22%:如果你在生产环境部署LLM代码审计器,这条结论直接关系安全水位:攻击者把恶意代码拆进多个看似无害的PR后,审计器基本会漏掉。PRWeaver基准用208个经执行验证的攻击、4种审查渲染测了6类审计系统,整窗口审查(N=24)下检测率跌到16–22%,比单PR模式的50–60%低约40个百分点。

两句看懂

现有安全评测把完整漏洞放进单一PR,无法反映攻击者跨多PR分散隐蔽的真实场景。PRWeaver构建208个执行验证攻击并以4种渲染测试,整窗口模式(N=24)检测率仅16–22%,较单PR模式下降约40个百分点。

核心判断

跨PR隐蔽攻击能有效规避LLM审计器。根本原因是良性变更与恶意变更共占活跃上下文时恶意信号被稀释,或PR描述为可疑差异提供了合理掩护。整窗口模式(N=24)检测率16–22%印证了这一结论。

关键要点

1. 旧评测假设漏洞完整存在于单一PR,忽略了XZ风格的跨PR分散隐蔽攻击,导致LLM审计器的抗对抗能力被系统性高估。 2. PRWeaver从10个真实仓库构建208个执行验证攻击,覆盖6类安全风险,每个攻击做4种渲染变体(共832条实例),受控变量为提交分解粒度、交错密度(N=16)和载体融合方式。 3. 整窗口审查(N=24)检测率16–22%,远低于单PR模式的50–60%,提交分解影响不超过5个百分点;结论是部署时应控制审查上下文窗口规模,别指望细化提交边界来提升检出。

证据与结果

数据集来自10个真实仓库,208个执行验证攻击×4种渲染=832条实例,覆盖6类安全风险:授权、财务完整性、工作流可用性、认证、数据暴露、不安全输入。评测对象为3种PR审计代理、6个审计器-模型系统。关键对比:单PR模式检测率50–60%,整窗口(N=24)降至16–22%;提交分解影响≤5个百分点;交错(N=16)降低5–13个百分点;载体融合降低10–18个百分点。失效模式:恶意与良性变更共占活跃上下文,或PR描述对攻击载荷提供合理解释。

打开论文原文
它要解决什么
当攻击者把恶意变更分散到多个表面无害的PR中时,LLM代码审计器还能不能识别这类跨PR的长视界攻击?
研究路径
机制分两步。构造侧:针对每个仓库识别安全风险类型,开发恶意代码并用PoC验证影响,再把恶意代码分解为相互依赖的补丁序列,单个补丁单独看无害、组合后才触发漏洞,最后以4种渲染包装。测量侧:用3种审计代理×6个审计器-模型系统分别测检测率。失效机理是上下文稀释——良恶变更共占活跃上下文——加上PR描述的合理化掩护。
这对工程意味着什么
第一个动作:部署LLM代码审计器时,控制单次审查的上下文窗口规模,避免良性变更把恶意信号淹没。要避免的捷径:不要以为提高提交分解粒度就能增强安全检测——实验显示该操作对检测率的影响不超过5个百分点。
证据定位
整窗口审查(N=24)检测率只有16–22%,而单PR模式为50–60%,相差约40个百分点。分因素看:提交分解对检测率影响不超过5个百分点;交错(N=16)降低5–13个百分点;载体融合降低10–18个百分点。失效模式指向两点:恶意与良性变更共占审计器活跃上下文导致信号被稀释,或PR描述为可疑差异提供了合理化掩护。(筛选维度:可复核评测、软件工程方法)
适用边界
攻击实例由研究者手工构建,可能未覆盖真实攻击者的所有隐蔽策略;样本仅10个仓库,规模有限;4种渲染变体是否穷尽实际PR提交模式尚不明确。
方法与英文摘要

研究者从10个真实仓库中识别出6类安全风险,先开发恶意代码并用PoC验证其安全影响,再把恶意代码拆成相互依赖的补丁序列——单个补丁看无害,组合后才触发漏洞——嵌入合规PR。每个攻击以4种审查渲染呈现:单PR、提交分解、交错(N=16)、载体融合,共208个攻击×4=832条实例,用3种审计代理×6个审计器-模型系统分别测量检测率。

LLM-based code auditors are increasingly integrated into pull-request (PR) workflows, yet their reliability against adversarial changes distributed across repository evolution remains poorly understood. We introduce PRWeaver, a benchmark of 208 execution-validated attacks from ten real-world repositories, each instantiated under four matched review renderings (832 renderings in total). We evaluate three PR-auditing agents across six auditor-model systems. Across all systems, decomposing an attack changes detection by at most five percentage points, showing that commit boundaries alone do not explain evasion. In contrast, per-PR interleaving at $N=16$ and coherent carrier fusion reduce detection by 5-13 and 10-18 points, respectively. Under whole-window review at $N=24$, detection falls to 16-22%, compared with 50-60% under per-PR review. These results show that access to repository history is insufficient: concealment becomes most effective when benign and malicious changes jointly occupy the auditor's active review context or when the stated purpose plausibly accounts for the attack-bearing diff.

软件工程与仓库智能 7/30

BulkPR-Bench: Benchmarking Queue-Level Governance of Interacting Pull Requests

联合治理PR队列比顺序评审难得多:最高RDS仅66.6%,324次运行仅8次完成全队…:如果你在用编码智能体管理合并队列,单条PR通过率会骗了你:它测不出多PR冲突与依赖下的联合决策能力。BulkPR-Bench在18个真实仓库、581个候选PR上评测队列级治理,结果最高RDS 66.6%(顺序基线53.1%),但324次运行中仅8次完整交付全队列。

两句看懂

顺序逐条合入无法处理PR间隐式冲突和全体依赖组,该基准在K=32批次协议下把队列级联合规划变成可评测任务。在18个真实仓库的581个候选PR上,最高RDS达66.6%(顺序基线53.1%),但仅8/324次运行完整完成队列,关键关系召回率不超过57.7%。

核心判断

队列级联合PR治理显著难于顺序评审:最优模型RDS 66.6%,但关键关系召回不足58%,324次运行中仅8次精确完成全队列。关系发现是当前主要瓶颈。

关键要点

1. 旧假设失败:顺序无延迟策略(K=1)会把隐式冲突对同时合入,或把有效依赖组全部拒绝,交付集合既不安全也不最优,而单PR基准测不出这种失败。 2. 方法与受控检验:581个新编候选PR覆盖18个冻结仓库快照,K=32批次;智能体维护可修订关系台账;隐藏验证器逐状态执行并校验黄金关系图;精确预言机给出最大安全子集,评分只看执行器实际接受的方案。 3. 决定性结果与行动:最佳模型RDS 66.6%高于顺序基线53.1%,但关系召回率最高仅57.7%,324次运行仅8次完成全队列;提供黄金关系后仍有大量提升空间。关系检测是首要瓶颈,应先补关系发现能力。

证据与结果

在18个真实仓库冻结快照上新编581个候选PR,主协议批次K=32,6个模型共324次运行。主指标RDS衡量关系组粒度的安全交付与正确拒绝,次指标Global-SGY衡量全队列严格交付。最高RDS为66.6%/62.0%/57.9%,最强顺序基线53.1%。关键关系召回率35.2%~57.7%。仅8/324次运行精确完成全队列。提供黄金关系的诊断运行仍有大量提升空间,说明当前规划能力优于关系检测能力。

打开论文原文
它要解决什么
当队列中多条PR存在冲突或依赖关系时,智能体能否联合决策合入哪些子集、按什么顺序执行?
研究路径
智能体拿到冻结仓库快照和N个候选PR(按K=32批次揭示)。它提交三类决策:原子合入提案、延迟决策、可修订的关系台账。隐藏验证器执行逐状态仓库操作并运行安全检查。黄金关系图由执行验证确立,精确预言机计算最大安全可执行子集。最终评分基于执行器实际接受的方案,而不是智能体声明的方案,防止自报高分。
这对工程意味着什么
第一步行动:评估合并队列智能体时改用支持联合规划的队列级基准,别再只看单PR通过率。要避免的捷径:不要假设关系组得分的提升会自动转化为全队列的可靠交付。
证据定位
6个模型共324次运行。最高RDS为66.6%/62.0%/57.9%,最强顺序基线为53.1%。关键关系召回率仅35.2%~57.7%。324次运行中仅8次精确完成全队列。即使提供黄金关系的诊断运行,仍显示大量提升空间。(筛选维度:可复核评测、软件工程方法)
适用边界
581个PR均为新编,不是历史合并记录,只覆盖18个仓库。主协议固定批次K=32。评测依赖可注册隐藏验证器的仓库环境,对任意开源项目的泛化性尚未验证。
方法与英文摘要

在18个冻结真实仓库快照上新编581个候选PR。智能体以K=32批次接收PR,提交原子合入提案、延迟决策和可修订关系台账。隐藏验证器逐状态执行仓库操作并做安全检查。黄金关系图由执行验证确立,精确预言机计算最大安全可执行子集。评分基于执行器实际接受的方案,而非智能体自己声明的方案。

Coding-agent benchmarks increasingly cover long-horizon, end-to-end, and interactive development, but typically retain one requested outcome or a fixed change sequence. Sequential policies can process a pull-request (PR) queue one candidate at a time, but when queued PRs interact, maximizing safe delivery can require jointly deciding which changes to merge and in what order. We introduce BulkPR-Bench, an executable benchmark in which an agent must recover consequential PR relations and return a large safe subset in executable order under a rolling-release protocol. The suite contains 581 newly authored candidate PRs on frozen snapshots of 18 real repositories. Registered state-by-state repository execution, including hidden safety checks, validates the gold relation graph; an exact oracle then computes the largest safe subset. Our primary metric, Relational Delivery Score (RDS), scores safe delivery and correct rejection over relation groups from the realized merge trace; Global Safety-Gated Yield (Global-SGY) separately measures strict delivery of the realized whole-queue plan. Under the buffered primary protocol with batch size $K=32$, the three highest RDS estimates among the six models are 66.6%, 62.0%, and 57.9%, compared with 53.1% for the strongest sequential baseline. Only 8 of 324 model runs complete a queue exactly. Critical-relation recall ranges from 35.2% to 57.7%, and diagnostic runs supplied with the gold relations show substantial remaining headroom. Gains on relation groups therefore do not yet translate into dependable whole-queue governance.

软件工程与仓库智能 6/30

HyperFL: Query-Adaptive Representation Learning for Software Fault Localization

每条issue动态生成LoRA参数,故障定位精度提升13.3%以上:如果你在做检索式故障定位,且管道里所有issue共用同一个查询编码器,那么复杂调试报告的定位精度很可能被这个固定参数卡住了。HyperFL的做法是:用超网络为每条issue单独生成LoRA参数注入查询编码器,代码编码器和索引完全不动。

两句看懂

检索式故障定位对所有issue报告使用固定查询编码器,无法适应报告在结构和调试内容上的异质性;HyperFL用超网络为每条issue动态生成LoRA参数,查询编码器随issue内容变化,代码编码器保持冻结。实验在GitHub真实issue基准上跨多个嵌入骨干验证,相比最强基线SweRankEmbed,函数级MRR@10提升13.3%,Hit@1提升16.7%。

核心判断

查询自适应能显著提升检索式故障定位精度:为每条issue动态生成LoRA参数使查询编码器适配其结构特征,相比固定查询编码器基线,函数级MRR@10提升13.3%,Hit@1提升16.7%。

关键要点

1. 旧假设失效:现有方法(含SweRank)假设统一查询编码器足以处理所有issue,但真实issue从简洁功能请求到含堆栈跟踪的复杂报告差异巨大,固定参数无法同时捕捉两类信号。 2. 方法与受控检查:HyperFL以issue嵌入为输入、由超网络生成查询专属LoRA参数注入查询编码器,代码编码器冻结;对照为相同骨干的固定查询编码器,指标为函数级MRR@10和Hit@1。 3. 结果与行动:MRR@10相对提升13.3%,Hit@1提升16.7%,含调试信息的issue获益最大;应在issue-to-code检索管道中为查询侧加超网络适配层,并注意极低延迟场景需评估额外前向开销。

证据与结果

评估基准构建自GitHub真实issue,多样性高于现有基准,具体规模未在摘录中披露。指标为函数级MRR@10和Hit@1。HyperFL在多个嵌入骨干上均取得一致提升;与最强基线SweRankEmbed对比,MRR@10相对提升13.3%,Hit@1相对提升16.7%。按issue类型细分:含堆栈跟踪和错误消息的报告获益更大,简洁功能请求类获益较小,说明自适应对调试信息丰富的异质性查询效果更显著。

打开论文原文
它要解决什么
检索式故障定位对不同issue报告使用统一查询编码器,能否通过为每条查询动态生成适配参数来提升定位精度?
研究路径
超网络接收issue报告的嵌入向量,前向生成一组LoRA低秩矩阵(A和B矩阵),作为增量权重注入查询编码器注意力层。代码编码器参数全程冻结,不参与反向传播。训练阶段以issue-函数对为正样本,用对比学习目标优化查询-代码对齐。推理阶段每条issue独立执行一次超网络前向传播,然后完成单次向量检索。
这对工程意味着什么
第一个行动:在现有issue-to-code检索管道的查询编码器上加一层超网络适配层,代码索引不用动,先跑通含堆栈跟踪issue的对比测试。要避免的捷径:不要只靠扩大训练数据来弥补固定查询表示的精度上限,瓶颈在参数不随查询变化。
证据定位
与SweRankEmbed基线对比,函数级MRR@10相对提升13.3%,Hit@1相对提升16.7%。进一步分析显示,含堆栈跟踪、错误消息等丰富调试信息的issue获益更大,简洁功能请求类获益较小,说明固定编码器的瓶颈集中在结构化调试内容的语义提取上。(筛选维度:可复核评测、软件工程方法)
适用边界
论文仅在GitHub issue-to-function检索粒度上评估,未覆盖文件级或类级定位。数据集具体规模未在摘录中披露,未控制代码库规模和编程语言分布对结果的影响。issue类型划分依据(功能请求vs含调试信息)未详述量化标准。超网络参数生成引入额外前向传播开销,极低延迟场景需评估代价。
方法与英文摘要

HyperFL在双编码器框架上引入超网络:把issue报告嵌入作为超网络输入,输出查询专属的LoRA低秩参数矩阵,注入查询编码器注意力层。代码编码器参数全程冻结,检索索引可以直接复用。训练用issue-函数对做监督,推理时每条issue先生成一次LoRA参数,再执行一次向量检索。方法在多个嵌入骨干(含SweRankEmbed)上验证,基准来自GitHub真实issue,多样性超过现有基准。

Software fault localization identifies the code locations responsible for reported issues and is a fundamental step toward automated debugging and program repair. Recent retrieval-based approaches formulate fault localization as a dense retrieval task by learning a shared embedding space between issue reports and source code. However, these methods encode all issue reports using a fixed query representation, despite the substantial diversity of real-world issue reports in length, structure, and debugging information. To address this limitation, we propose HyperFL, a query-adaptive representation learning framework for software fault localization. HyperFL employs a lightweight hypernetwork to generate query-specific LoRA parameters for the query encoder, enabling dynamic query adaptation while keeping the code encoder fixed and reusable. Experiments on a real-world issue localization benchmark demonstrate that HyperFL consistently improves retrieval performance across multiple embedding backbones, achieving up to 13.3% relative improvement in function-level MRR@10 and 16.7% relative improvement in Hit@1 over the state-of-the-art method SweRank. Further analysis shows that HyperFL learns distinct adaptation patterns for different issue characteristics, highlighting the effectiveness of query-adaptive representations for software issue localization.

代码质量与优化(1 篇)

代码质量与优化 6/30

Cross-Ecosystem Bug Classification in Quantum Software

量子软件缺陷三分之二是经典缺陷,规则框架在细粒度量子子类分类上胜过监督ML:如果你在量子软件项目里做缺陷管理,先要关心一件事:该把精力放在经典bug还是量子特有bug上,以及用什么工具自动分类。这项横跨Qiskit和11个非Qiskit仓库、共17523条issue的研究给出答案:经典缺陷占约67%,而一套规则框架在细粒度量子特有子类分类上持续优于四种监督ML基线,且不需要标注语料。

两句看懂

过去的量子软件缺陷研究只看单一生态,监督ML方法又因标注语料稀缺难以落地;这项研究把规则框架扩展到Qiskit之外11个仓库,共17523条issue做跨生态对比。结果显示经典缺陷稳定占约67%,规则框架在量子特有细粒度子类分类上持续胜过四种监督ML基线。

核心判断

量子软件的经典缺陷跨生态稳定占约67%,量子特有缺陷占27-30%;规则框架在细粒度量子特有子类分类上持续优于四种监督ML基线,说明在标注数据稀缺的领域,可解释的规则框架本身就是实用方案。

关键要点

1. 旧假设:量子缺陷研究只覆盖单一生态,跨生态规律未知;监督ML因量子标注语料匮乏,无法做细粒度量子子类的实用自动分类。 2. 方法:用Qiskit(36仓库12910条issue)加11个非Qiskit仓库(4613条issue)建双生态语料,规则框架按五维分类,用卡方检验和Cramér's V做统计验证,并对照四种监督ML基线。 3. 结果与行动:经典缺陷约67%、量子特有缺陷27-30%,规则框架在细粒度量子子类上持续胜出;工程上应直接用规则框架做issue自动分类,而非上马监督ML。

证据与结果

数据集:Qiskit生态36仓库12910条issue,11个非Qiskit仓库(含Cirq、PyQuil)4613条issue,跨度2017-2025年。分类结果:经典缺陷约67%,量子特有缺陷27-30%;Qiskit的兼容性缺陷突出,非Qiskit的语法和量子特有缺陷比例更高;门电路类在两个生态都居量子子类首位,非Qiskit另有算法、资源和混合接口类。统计上,卡方检验在缺陷类型层级确认泛化性,细粒度层级检测到显著差异。ML对比中规则框架在量子特有细粒度子类上持续胜出。纵向看,量子特有缺陷比例八年相对稳定。

打开论文原文
它要解决什么
量子软件的缺陷分布在不同生态之间是否一致?在标注数据稀缺的条件下,规则框架能否在细粒度量子特有子类分类上胜过监督ML基线?
研究路径
流程是:从公开仓库抓取Qiskit的12910条issue和非Qiskit的4613条issue;规则框架按类型(经典/量子/混合)、类别、严重性、质量属性、量子子类(门、电路、算法、资源、混合接口等)五个维度逐条分类;再用卡方检验和Cramér's V检验两个生态的分布差异;以分类精度对比四种监督ML基线;最后按年份统计2017-2025年的缺陷演变趋势。
这对工程意味着什么
第一步行动:在量子软件项目里先用规则框架对issue做细粒度缺陷分类,绕开标注数据瓶颈,结果还可审计。要避开的捷径:不要直接换成监督ML分类器,这类方法在量子特有细粒度子类上系统性地弱于规则框架。
证据定位
经典缺陷在两个生态中都占约67%,量子特有缺陷占27-30%。门电路问题在两个生态中都居量子子类首位;非Qiskit项目还额外出现算法、资源和混合接口类问题。卡方检验确认框架在缺陷类型层级具有跨生态泛化性,但细粒度层级存在显著差异。规则框架在细粒度量子特有子类分类上持续优于四种监督ML基线。2017-2025年间量子特有缺陷比例相对稳定,未见持续增长。(筛选维度:可复核评测、软件工程方法)
适用边界
语料只含公开issue文本,不含代码变更或测试用例;规则由人工制定,对新出现的量子错误模式的覆盖依赖规则持续维护;非Qiskit样本量(4613条)少于Qiskit(12910条),部分细粒度子类的统计功效可能受限。
方法与英文摘要

作者收集了两个生态的issue:Qiskit生态36个仓库12910条,11个非Qiskit仓库(含Cirq、PyQuil)4613条,时间跨度2017-2025年。规则框架按五个维度分类:类型(经典/量子/混合)、类别、严重性、质量属性、量子特有子类(门、电路、算法、资源、混合接口等)。统计验证用卡方检验和Cramér's V检查跨生态分布差异;分类效果与四种监督ML基线对比;另做2017-2025年纵向趋势分析。

Quantum software engineering faces unique challenges due to the interaction of classical and quantum components, which produce complex and often poorly understood bug patterns. Characterizing these bugs is essential for advancing testing, debugging, and quality assurance in quantum ecosystems. This paper presents a comparative study of 12,910 issues from Qiskit and 4,613 issues from 11 additional repositories, including Cirq and PyQuil. Using a rule-based classification framework, we analyze bugs by type, category, severity, quality attributes, and quantum-specific subtypes. Results show that classical bugs consistently dominate (67%) across ecosystems, while quantum-specific bugs account for 27-30%. Ecosystem-specific trends emerge: Qiskit repositories exhibit more compatibility related bugs, whereas other ecosystems show higher syntax and quantum-specific bug rates. Across both ecosystems, gate and circuit issues dominate quantum-specific bugs, though non-Qiskit projects reveal broader diversity, including algorithmic, resource, and hybrid-interface issues. Statistical validation confirms that the framework generalizes at the bug-type level while detecting significant variations at finer levels. Benchmarking against four supervised machine-learning baselines further shows that the rule-based framework consistently outperforms data-driven models, particularly for fine-grained quantum-specific subtypes, while longitudinal analysis (2017-2025) indicates that quantum- specific bugs remain relatively stable over time rather than exhibiting a steady increase. This study provides the first cross- ecosystem comparison of bug distributions in quantum software, demonstrating the utility of an interpretable, automation-ready, rule-based framework for guiding testing, debugging, and quality assurance.

UI 与 GUI Agent(1 篇)

UI 与 GUI Agent 6/30

Can LLMs Test Terminal User Interfaces?

LLM测终端界面:等时间预算下打不过随机探索,先修启动参数再说:如果你维护TUI应用并想用LLM自动找崩溃,这项研究能帮你省钱:197个真实项目的对比实验显示,在相同时间预算下四个前沿LLM都不比随机探索发现更多崩溃,真正带来最大增益的是自动推导启动参数,而不是更强的模型。

两句看懂

TUI接口层双重欠测——197个真实应用仅12%的测试触及接口且45%从不发送输入——研究构建跨四框架headless基准,用tuibot在等时间预算下对比四个前沿LLM与随机探索。结果是等时间预算下无模型占优,行覆盖率无法预测崩溃,自动推导启动参数才是最大单项增益。

核心判断

LLM可以参与自动化TUI崩溃测试,但问题远未解决:等时间预算下没有模型占优,行覆盖率不能预测崩溃,LLM的优势是单次交互效率更高且唯一能触达输入门控故障。证据来自197个应用、跨四框架的受控对比实验。

关键要点

1. 旧方法失效:CLI测试忽略有状态屏幕行为,GUI测试依赖可访问性树,而TUI只有字符网格加原始字节流;197个应用中12%测试触及接口、其中45%从不发送输入。 2. 方法与受控对比:tuibot按渲染字符网格生成原始键鼠事件注入伪终端,tuicov记录覆盖与崩溃,四框架Docker镜像基准上等wall-clock预算对比随机探索与四个前沿LLM。 3. 决定性结果与行动:等时间预算下LLM均未胜过随机探索,行覆盖率与崩溃弱相关;先上启动参数自动推导,用崩溃数作质量主指标。

证据与结果

基准为197个真实TUI应用,覆盖ratatui/Rust、bubbletea/Go、textual/Python、ink/TypeScript四框架,各自封装为headless插桩Docker镜像。指标是行覆盖率、实验性widget覆盖率和崩溃数量;对比方是四个前沿LLM与随机探索,控制等wall-clock时间预算。结果:(1)无LLM占优;(2)随机优势来自吞吐量,LLM单次效率更高且唯一触达输入门控故障;(3)行覆盖率与崩溃弱相关,不宜作代理指标;(4)启动参数自动推导是最大单项增益。

打开论文原文
它要解决什么
三个实际疑问:LLM驱动的探索能否迁移到TUI测试?行覆盖率能否可靠预测TUI崩溃?随机探索和LLM策略到底谁更强?
研究路径
tuibot循环执行:捕获当前字符网格渲染帧,由LLM或随机策略生成原始键鼠事件,注入伪终端驱动状态转移,直到时间预算耗尽。tuicov用kill-resilient插桩,在应用被强制终止时仍能记录行覆盖、实验性widget覆盖并检测崩溃。启动参数推导模块在探索前独立运行,推导正确启动TUI所需的命令行参数。
这对工程意味着什么
第一步行动:给TUI项目接崩溃检测时,先实现启动参数自动推导,它直接解锁因启动失败而测不了的应用,比升级更强模型收益更大。要避开的捷径:不要把提升行覆盖率当代理目标,它与崩溃发现在TUI上弱相关。
证据定位
197个应用中仅12%的测试触及接口层,其中45%从不发送输入。等时间预算下四个前沿LLM均未超越随机探索;随机的崩溃优势来自更高吞吐量,LLM单次交互效率更高且唯一能触达输入门控故障;行覆盖率与崩溃发现弱相关;自动推导启动参数带来最大单项增益,解锁了此前因无法启动而测不了的应用。(筛选维度:可复核评测、GUI Agent 方法)
适用边界
研究只聚焦崩溃,逻辑错误和性能回归因缺乏真值未纳入;基准限于ratatui、bubbletea、textual、ink四个框架;widget覆盖信号是实验性的,跨框架可靠性有差异。
方法与英文摘要

研究先调查197个真实TUI应用的测试现状,再构建跨ratatui/Rust、bubbletea/Go、textual/Python、ink/TypeScript四框架的headless基准,每个应用封装为插桩Docker镜像。tuibot在等wall-clock预算下运行随机探索和四个前沿LLM策略:读取渲染字符网格,生成原始键鼠事件,注入伪终端。tuicov以kill-resilient方式记录行覆盖、实验性widget覆盖和崩溃。启动参数自动推导单独评估。

Terminal User Interfaces (TUIs) combine the stateful, screen-oriented behaviour of GUIs with terminal deployment and are now common in developer tools. Yet they lack a dedicated testing methodology. We survey 197 real-world TUI applications: only 12% of test code exercises the interface, and 45% of those tests never send input, checking a static frame instead. We turn these applications into a headless benchmark spanning ratatui/Rust, bubbletea/Go, textual/Python, and ink/TypeScript, packaging each as an instrumented Docker image. We record line and widget coverage where reliable, rendered terminal states, and crashes. Under equal wall-clock budgets, we compare four frontier LLMs with random exploration. No model dominates. Random is a strong time-budgeted baseline, but its crash advantage comes from higher throughput: per interaction, LLM guidance is more efficient and uniquely reaches input-gated faults. Automatically deriving launch inputs yields the largest practical gain, enabling applications that otherwise never start. Line coverage poorly predicts crash discovery, weakening it as a proxy for test effectiveness. Automated TUI testing is feasible but far from solved, and honest baselines matter more than model choice. We release the coverage tool tuicov at https://github.com/tui-testing/tuicov and the testing framework tuibot at https://github.com/tui-testing/tuibot.

个人知识与本体(0 篇)

本轮没有通过深读证据门的重点论文。

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31
软件工程与仓库智能33
代码质量与优化21
UI 与 GUI Agent21
个人知识与本体30
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(13 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 · 3/30 · 2026-08-04工作流持久层恢复语义的机器验证契约提出RESUME契约六条性质,TLA+穷举检查含7.4M状态与39格故障矩阵,揭示各框架恢复行为差异。Resume Means Resume: A Machine-Checked Conformance Contract for Checkpoint, Interrupt, and Resume Semantics in Workflow Persistence Layers

A framework that persists execution state so a run can be interrupted, survive a crash, and continue must decide what a resume means for effects that already fired. Five widely deployed agent workflow frameworks answer differently, none exposes a machine-checkable contract, and behavior violates even the fragments they state. The RESUME CONTRACT states six properties over the persistence API (prefix continuation, effect exactly-once, fork determinism, checkpoint validity, consume-once, recovery determinism), plus fork-intent and liveness obligations. A TLA+ model checks a reference semantics exhaustively, unchanged at scaled bounds (7.4 million states); a 39-cell fault matrix yields the separating models independence requires, and consume-once splits, its consumption clause independent of all six others. A deterministic, LLM-free harness measures them at pinned releases. LangGraph 1.2.9 durably records a second resume value and never consults it, persists schema-invalid state silently, and re-executes durably recorded work after a real SIGKILL: exactly-once across interrupts, at-least-once across crashes, on one API. CrewAI 1.15.2 re-executes completed effect-bearing methods against its written claim; pydantic-graph 1.x cannot resume after a mid-node crash; no two probed frameworks share a conformance profile. Consume-once holds sequentially and fails under concurrent delivery: k processes resuming one parked interrupt fire the gated effect k times, saturation 1.0 in 36 of 40 cells, and the failure crosses hosts. REMIT, a reference sequencer whose Verus-verified recovery core is line-identical to the shipped executable, repairs the fork and validity cells. The cross-process cell is repaired at the read path, and that repair ships: an opt-in gate claims consumption in the shared store, serving one racer and refusing the rest before any node executes.

阅读 arXiv 原文
形式化与程序验证 · 4/30 · 2026-08-04面向操作数据的智能体系统形式验证将LLM智能体与工具编排形式化为STEAD,验证FO-CTL性质;证明问题不可判定并给出充分条件。Formal Verification of Agentic Systems over Operational Data

Agentic systems driven by large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in real-world workflows where they act on persistent operational data. Before deployment, these systems need to be verified against business requirements that govern workflow execution and data evolution. However, existing approaches do not provide such system-level guarantees, as they mainly constrain or analyse behaviour at the agent's interface level. We study here the verification of agentic systems comprising a single LLM and a tool orchestration harness over relational operational data. We formalise them as Stateful Tool-Enabled Agentic Deployments (STEADs), give their semantics, define the problem of verifying them against First-Order Computation Tree Logic (FO-CTL) specifications, and show that it is undecidable. We identify sufficient conditions for exact preservation of FO-CTL specifications under a finite-domain restriction, over which verification is PSPACE-complete. The key requirement is that renaming opaque identifiers in the data must correspondingly rename the selected tool calls. We show that LLM-driven agents can violate this condition and introduce a canonical deployment wrapper that guarantees it for arbitrary base agents while preserving already-equivariant behaviour. We prove that computing canonical representations required by this construction is graph-isomorphism-hard. Finally, we illustrate our framework on an LLM agent orchestrating a case-management workflow.

阅读 arXiv 原文
形式化与程序验证 · 3/30 · 2026-08-04截图还是工具:混合GUI-MCP智能体工具调用OSWorld-MCP上同工具使推理模型+4.0pp、非推理模型-5.9pp;调用缺口源于已有更便宜路径。Screenshots or Tools? Eliciting Tool Use and Managing Multimodal Context in Hybrid GUI-MCP Computer-Use Agents

Hybrid computer-use agents can act through screenshots or call text tools. We find that having a tool available does not settle which way the effect goes. Under one identical GUI-MCP harness on the OSWorld-MCP benchmark (309 tasks), the same MCP tools improve a reasoning model by +4.0pp and degrade a non-reasoning model by -5.9pp (5 runs each, both beyond 2 SE). What separates the two is tool-decision behavior. The non-reasoning policy ignores, misnames, or falsely terminates around tools. The reasoning model avoids these failures, yet still calls a tool on only 55/309 tasks, 23.9% of the tool-reachable ones. We call this shortfall the adoption gap. Both levels of the problem share one cause: the model already has a cheaper route and is never trained to take it. Multi-turn RL probes that cause. At the action level, a dense tool bonus raises spreadsheet adoption 0.03 -> 0.33 and carries into greedy decoding, but held-out accuracy does not follow. Behavior is steerable; competence is not. The bottleneck lies in tool-call semantics. At the context level, a successful tool call often makes the next screenshot redundant. Dropping it and halving image history cuts input tokens by about a third, at a small accuracy cost. Retraining under the same observation rule removes that cost. The compressed agent then reaches 37.8% against 33.0% for the uncompressed operating point, at 53% of the input cost, and closes the rich-lean gap on a pre-registered degraded subset to zero. Tools help when the model chooses and integrates them, and current hybrid agents leave many such choices unused.

阅读 arXiv 原文

软件工程与仓库智能(3 篇)

软件工程与仓库智能 · 6/30 · 2026-08-04查询自适应软件缺陷定位表示学习提出HyperFL:用轻量超网络为查询编码器生成任务专属LoRA参数,实现查询自适应而代码编码器复用。HyperFL: Query-Adaptive Representation Learning for Software Fault Localization

Software fault localization identifies the code locations responsible for reported issues and is a fundamental step toward automated debugging and program repair. Recent retrieval-based approaches formulate fault localization as a dense retrieval task by learning a shared embedding space between issue reports and source code. However, these methods encode all issue reports using a fixed query representation, despite the substantial diversity of real-world issue reports in length, structure, and debugging information. To address this limitation, we propose HyperFL, a query-adaptive representation learning framework for software fault localization. HyperFL employs a lightweight hypernetwork to generate query-specific LoRA parameters for the query encoder, enabling dynamic query adaptation while keeping the code encoder fixed and reusable. Experiments on a real-world issue localization benchmark demonstrate that HyperFL consistently improves retrieval performance across multiple embedding backbones, achieving up to 13.3% relative improvement in function-level MRR@10 and 16.7% relative improvement in Hit@1 over the state-of-the-art method SweRank. Further analysis shows that HyperFL learns distinct adaptation patterns for different issue characteristics, highlighting the effectiveness of query-adaptive representations for software issue localization.

阅读 arXiv 原文
软件工程与仓库智能 · 7/30 · 2026-08-03恶意拉取请求场景下的代码审计评测PRWeaver含208个可执行验证攻击、832种渲染;交错与载体融合降低检测率,长历史窗口下仅16-22%。PRWeaver: Evaluating LLM-Based Code Auditors against Long-Horizon Malicious Pull Requests

LLM-based code auditors are increasingly integrated into pull-request (PR) workflows, yet their reliability against adversarial changes distributed across repository evolution remains poorly understood. We introduce PRWeaver, a benchmark of 208 execution-validated attacks from ten real-world repositories, each instantiated under four matched review renderings (832 renderings in total). We evaluate three PR-auditing agents across six auditor-model systems. Across all systems, decomposing an attack changes detection by at most five percentage points, showing that commit boundaries alone do not explain evasion. In contrast, per-PR interleaving at $N=16$ and coherent carrier fusion reduce detection by 5-13 and 10-18 points, respectively. Under whole-window review at $N=24$, detection falls to 16-22%, compared with 50-60% under per-PR review. These results show that access to repository history is insufficient: concealment becomes most effective when benign and malicious changes jointly occupy the auditor's active review context or when the stated purpose plausibly accounts for the attack-bearing diff.

阅读 arXiv 原文
软件工程与仓库智能 · 7/30 · 2026-08-03交互式拉取请求队列治理基准BulkPR-Bench含18仓库581个候选PR,以状态级执行与安全校验验证关系图,用RDS度量安全交付子集BulkPR-Bench: Benchmarking Queue-Level Governance of Interacting Pull Requests

Coding-agent benchmarks increasingly cover long-horizon, end-to-end, and interactive development, but typically retain one requested outcome or a fixed change sequence. Sequential policies can process a pull-request (PR) queue one candidate at a time, but when queued PRs interact, maximizing safe delivery can require jointly deciding which changes to merge and in what order. We introduce BulkPR-Bench, an executable benchmark in which an agent must recover consequential PR relations and return a large safe subset in executable order under a rolling-release protocol. The suite contains 581 newly authored candidate PRs on frozen snapshots of 18 real repositories. Registered state-by-state repository execution, including hidden safety checks, validates the gold relation graph; an exact oracle then computes the largest safe subset. Our primary metric, Relational Delivery Score (RDS), scores safe delivery and correct rejection over relation groups from the realized merge trace; Global Safety-Gated Yield (Global-SGY) separately measures strict delivery of the realized whole-queue plan. Under the buffered primary protocol with batch size $K=32$, the three highest RDS estimates among the six models are 66.6%, 62.0%, and 57.9%, compared with 53.1% for the strongest sequential baseline. Only 8 of 324 model runs complete a queue exactly. Critical-relation recall ranges from 35.2% to 57.7%, and diagnostic runs supplied with the gold relations show substantial remaining headroom. Gains on relation groups therefore do not yet translate into dependable whole-queue governance.

阅读 arXiv 原文

代码质量与优化(2 篇)

代码质量与优化 · 3/30 · 2026-08-04Linux内核注释失效引用检测修复提出ReCite三阶段方法:检测注释中无法解析的函数符号,经Git历史追踪并修复失效引用。We Must Have Missed This Comment: Detecting and Repairing Stale Function References in Linux Kernel Comments

As the Linux kernel evolves, code comments may become outdated, as the functions they reference can be refactored or removed independently without corresponding updates to the comments. Such stale function references can mislead maintainers and thus hinder code comprehension. Prior work on detecting code-comment inconsistency mainly focused on addressing semantic misalignment between Javadoc comments and their directly annotated functions, making them inapplicable to this type of externally induced staleness in the Linux kernel. Therefore, we propose ReCite, a three-stage approach to identify and repair such stale references: (1) detecting unresolved function-form symbols -- symbols in comments that appear to reference functions but for which no matching function can be found in the current codebase, (2) tracing the evolution history of each unresolved symbol through the Git history, and (3) generating LLM-based repair suggestions grounded in the evolution history and current code context. On Linux kernel v6.18-rc1, ReCite detects 869 stale references with generated repair suggestions. A manual evaluation on 200 sampled repairs shows that 178 (89.0%) provide useful repair guidance, with 85 (42.5%) directly applicable. Of our 75 submitted patches, 50 have been accepted. We also empirically study all unresolved function-form symbols.

阅读 arXiv 原文
代码质量与优化 · 6/30 · 2026-08-04量子软件跨生态缺陷分类研究对比Qiskit等12仓库约1.7万issue:经典缺陷占67%,量子特有占27-30%,生态间趋势不同。Cross-Ecosystem Bug Classification in Quantum Software

Quantum software engineering faces unique challenges due to the interaction of classical and quantum components, which produce complex and often poorly understood bug patterns. Characterizing these bugs is essential for advancing testing, debugging, and quality assurance in quantum ecosystems. This paper presents a comparative study of 12,910 issues from Qiskit and 4,613 issues from 11 additional repositories, including Cirq and PyQuil. Using a rule-based classification framework, we analyze bugs by type, category, severity, quality attributes, and quantum-specific subtypes. Results show that classical bugs consistently dominate (67%) across ecosystems, while quantum-specific bugs account for 27-30%. Ecosystem-specific trends emerge: Qiskit repositories exhibit more compatibility related bugs, whereas other ecosystems show higher syntax and quantum-specific bug rates. Across both ecosystems, gate and circuit issues dominate quantum-specific bugs, though non-Qiskit projects reveal broader diversity, including algorithmic, resource, and hybrid-interface issues. Statistical validation confirms that the framework generalizes at the bug-type level while detecting significant variations at finer levels. Benchmarking against four supervised machine-learning baselines further shows that the rule-based framework consistently outperforms data-driven models, particularly for fine-grained quantum-specific subtypes, while longitudinal analysis (2017-2025) indicates that quantum- specific bugs remain relatively stable over time rather than exhibiting a steady increase. This study provides the first cross- ecosystem comparison of bug distributions in quantum software, demonstrating the utility of an interpretable, automation-ready, rule-based framework for guiding testing, debugging, and quality assurance.

阅读 arXiv 原文

UI 与 GUI Agent(2 篇)

UI 与 GUI Agent · 6/30 · 2026-08-04大模型能否测试终端用户界面调研197款TUI应用,仅12%测试覆盖界面;跨四技术栈基准中无模型占优,随机为强基线;摘要截断。Can LLMs Test Terminal User Interfaces?

Terminal User Interfaces (TUIs) combine the stateful, screen-oriented behaviour of GUIs with terminal deployment and are now common in developer tools. Yet they lack a dedicated testing methodology. We survey 197 real-world TUI applications: only 12% of test code exercises the interface, and 45% of those tests never send input, checking a static frame instead. We turn these applications into a headless benchmark spanning ratatui/Rust, bubbletea/Go, textual/Python, and ink/TypeScript, packaging each as an instrumented Docker image. We record line and widget coverage where reliable, rendered terminal states, and crashes. Under equal wall-clock budgets, we compare four frontier LLMs with random exploration. No model dominates. Random is a strong time-budgeted baseline, but its crash advantage comes from higher throughput: per interaction, LLM guidance is more efficient and uniquely reaches input-gated faults. Automatically deriving launch inputs yields the largest practical gain, enabling applications that otherwise never start. Line coverage poorly predicts crash discovery, weakening it as a proxy for test effectiveness. Automated TUI testing is feasible but far from solved, and honest baselines matter more than model choice. We release the coverage tool tuicov at https://github.com/tui-testing/tuicov and the testing framework tuibot at https://github.com/tui-testing/tuibot.

阅读 arXiv 原文
UI 与 GUI Agent · 4/30 · 2026-08-04从Bug报告到浏览器可执行复现流程提出ReBug智能体:从Web GUI缺陷报告重建前置条件,驱动真实浏览器执行并验证复现过程。From Bug Reports to Browser-Executable Procedures: An LLM-Driven Agent for Web GUI Bug Reproduction

Reproducing web GUI bugs from natural-language bug reports is critical for software maintenance, but remains difficult because reports often lack prerequisites such as dependencies and input files. Existing bug reproduction techniques mainly target code units or mobile applications and lack end-to-end visual execution and validation for web GUIs. We present ReBug, a context-aware agent system that reconstructs, executes, and validates browser-level reproduction procedures from web GUI bug reports by driving a real browser. ReBug separates reproduction into two stages. In the preparation stage, ReBug reconstructs missing prerequisites from the report and available artifacts, and it produces a high-level reproduction plan. In the execution stage, it performs tool-mediated interactions in the browser, maintains structured summaries of page state and action history, and validates the final state against expectations derived from the report. We evaluate ReBug on 667 real-world bug reports from four open-source web applications. On controlled current deployments, ReBug outperforms both baselines, achieving an average RSR of 49.96%, a mean task completion rate of 74.96%, and a mean action execution success rate of 86.54%. Our results show that explicit context reconstruction and state-aware browser execution effectively support report-derived browser reproduction, while historical replay shows that successful procedures often expose the original bug-present behavior on restored buggy versions.

阅读 arXiv 原文

个人知识与本体(3 篇)

个人知识与本体 · 3/30 · 2026-08-04针对审计智能体的查询记忆攻击提出MAFIA:通过记忆探测与事实注入实施查询式攻击,应对大规模记忆池与输入审计挑战;摘要截断。MAFIA: Query-Only Memory Attacks via Probing and Factual Injection against Audited LLM Agents

Memory-augmented LLM agents rely on rich context for long-horizon reasoning and acting, yet their memory modules expose a persistent attack surface for malicious records, making the study of memory poisoning threats imperative. However, existing query-only attacks often fail to remain effective in two realistic and prevalent settings: large-scale benign memory pools and active input auditing. Consequently, current approaches fall short when facing the dual challenges of high retrieval competitiveness and rigorous semantic checks. To overcome these limitations, we propose MAFIA, a query-only Memory Attack framework via probing and Factual Injection against Audit, tailored to this extended threat model. Specifically, MAFIA introduces: (1) a placement strategy that ensures retrieval-competitive injection via memory probing, budget allocation, and scheduling; and (2) a payload design that bypasses audits using compact factual cloaks, preserving malicious effects while maintaining high semantic similarity. Extensive evaluations reveal that MAFIA achieves up to a 90.7% attack success rate while suppressing audit detection from a peak of 83.3% to at most 7.4%, exposing critical vulnerabilities across agentic memory systems. Code will be made publicly available at https://github.com/JiamingChen1234/MAFIA.

阅读 arXiv 原文
个人知识与本体 · 3/30 · 2026-08-03持久智能体记忆的加密授权变更协议MutMem以签名证据记录正负结果,权重变更须经管家授权,Ed25519验证与防分叉提交保证可审计;评估截断。MutMem: Cryptographically Authorized Mutation in Persistent Agent Memory

Persistent agent memory must adapt as later outcomes change earlier evidence, yet mutable retrieval weights create an attribution problem: reviewers must distinguish authorized adaptation from database tampering. We present MutMem, an authorized-mutation protocol in HOM-AIMOS, a persistent agent-memory engine. MutMem retains memory content, records signed positive and negative outcome evidence without age-based expiry, and commits each nontrivial weight change as a housekeeper-authorized transition. Each transition binds a terminal provenance node, signer epoch, quantized old and new weights, a no-fork predecessor, and two domain-separated SHA-256 commitments. Ed25519 verification runs in both the database writer and a portable verifier. Content classified as poison-likely is retained with signed, revisable labels used by recall as trust evidence. We evaluate utility, mutation integrity, and poisoning adaptation. HOM-AIMOS answers 459/500 LongMemEval questions correctly under LLM judgment (91.8%). On LoCoMo, it obtains 74.12% judged accuracy and, under a separate upstream-compatible protocol, 58.20 token F1. A native suite passes all declared authorization, topology, tamper, signer-epoch, and post-mutation-recall cases; median signed-transition latency is 4.865 ms. In a declared N=100 PoisonedRAG adaptation, no injected poison appears in attacked top-5 disclosures (0/100; 95% Wilson upper bound 3.70%), while induced target-answer attack success among 98 clean-negative targets is 1/98 (1.02%). A preregistered four-arm ablation attributes the retrieval reduction to signed stored labels: the retriever selects poison for 94/100 targets when epistemic policy is bypassed and 0/100 when labels are restored. MutMem provides evidence of integrity, authorization, traceability, and historical continuity; it does not establish content truth.

阅读 arXiv 原文
个人知识与本体 · 0/30 · 2026-08-03社会文化任务的向量符号记忆建模在ACT-R中提出多层级声明性记忆系统,用向量符号自编码器与HRR区分情景与语义记忆编码。Learning a Vector-Symbolic Model for Socio-Cultural Tasks

How can we better represent the impact of sociocultural structures on decision making in computational cognitive models? Modeling this impact requires traversing multiple levels of semantic representation, however it is not immediately clear to a modeler which levels of representation are most salient to a given situation. Though large language models and cognitively grounded corpus models can represent broad semantic associations through co-occurences, the role of self representations in memory should be accounted for to determine how cultural associations shape decision making. We propose a declarative memory system to be used in the ACT-R cognitive architecture that represents semantic associations at multiple levels via a vector-symbolic autoencoder. We use a simple HRR operation to encode episodic memories differently from semantic memory vectors extracted from text to produce a final chunk activation for a memory request. We use ACT-R cognitive models of a racially contextualized implicit association test (IAT) to test this new declarative memory system.

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。