Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Daniele Bifolco

Publications and source records attributed to Daniele Bifolco.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

AIGen: Automating AI Bill of Materials Generation Through Hybrid MLOps Integration

The responsible development and deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) systems requires rigorous documentation of their constituent artifacts, e.g., datasets, model weights, training pipelines, and runtime dependencies. Although the Software Package Data Exchange (SPDX) 3.0 standard introduced native support for AI and dataset profiles, practical tooling capable of generating standards-compliant AI Bills of Materials (AIBoMs) in an automated and extensible manner remains scarce. This paper presents AIGen, a modular AIBoM generator that produces machine-readable, interoperable inventories of AI system components that comply with the SPDX 3.0 AI profile. AIGen works on top of the MLflow MLOps framework and combines mining heuristics with Large Language Models to generate AIBoMs. A plugin interface allows practitioners to extend the tool with domain-specific collectors without modifying the core codebase, supporting heterogeneous AI frameworks such as Hugging Face, PyTorch, and TensorFlow. AIGen is designed to facilitate compliance with the European Union AI Act, the NIST AI Risk Management Framework, and ISO/IEC 42001, providing a concrete, reusable foundation for transparent, accountable AI supply chain governance. Tool URL: https://github.com/danielebifolco/AIGen Tool Video: https://youtu.be/\_nAbXDWfVL4

cs.LG↗

Writing Bug Reports for Software Repair Agents: What Information Matters Most?

Software development is increasingly moving toward agentic-first workflows. This includes AI agents responsible for generating initial fixes for submitted issue reports. In this setting, issue reports are no longer merely documentation for human maintainers; they become the primary task specification for the agent. However, little is known about how such reports should be written to maximize the agent's chances of producing a correct fix. We study what makes a bug report agent-ready. Starting from the SWE-bench Verified benchmark (i.e., a collection of 500 real repository issues with human-written gold patches and test suites for evaluating generated fixes) we manually classify each issue by change type (e.g., bug fix vs refactoring) and annotate each sentence with its information type, such as observed behavior, expected behavior, reproduction steps, localization cues, and suggested fixes. We focus on the 441 issues representing bug reports, and we run on them mini-swe-agent using three LLM backbones (i.e., GPT-5-mini, MiniMax M2.5, and Gemini 3 Flash). We then fit a binomial regression model to estimate the incremental association between each information type and agent success, controlling for confounding factors. Our results suggest that agentic-first reports benefit most from information that narrows the agent's search and repair space. Localization cues, such as references to affected code areas, are positively associated with successful repairs, while suggested fixes, expressed either in code or natural language, show some of the strongest positive associations with pass probability. An ablation study removing selected information types confirms that agents benefit less from information traditionally useful to humans, such as reproduction steps, and more from sentences that expose a repair direction, either through bug localization or a suggested fix.

cs.SE↗

Machine Learning in the Wild: Early Evidence of Non-Compliant ML-Automation in Open-Source Software

The increasing availability of Machine Learning (ML) models, particularly foundation models, enables their use across a range of downstream applications, from scenarios with missing data to safety-critical contexts. This, in principle, may contravene not only the models' terms of use, but also governmental principles and regulations. This paper presents a preliminary investigation into the use of ML models by 173 open-source projects on GitHub, spanning 16 application domains. We evaluate whether models are used to make decisions, the scope of these decisions, and whether any post-processing measures are taken to reduce the risks inherent in fully autonomous systems. Lastly, we investigate the models' compliance with established terms of use. This study lays the groundwork for defining guidelines for developers and creating analysis tools that automatically identify potential regulatory violations in the use of ML models in software systems.

cs.SE↗

CodeGenLink: A Tool to Find the Likely Origin and License of Automatically Generated Code

Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used in software development tasks nowadays. Unlike reusing code taken from the Web, for LLMs' generated code, developers are concerned about its lack of trustworthiness and possible copyright or licensing violations, due to the lack of code provenance information. This paper proposes CodeGenLink, a GitHub CoPilot extension for Visual Studio Code aimed at (i) suggesting links containing code very similar to automatically generated code, and (ii) whenever possible, indicating the license of the likely origin of the code. CodeGenLink retrieves candidate links by combining LLMs with their web search features and then performs similarity analysis between the generated and retrieved code. Preliminary results show that CodeGenLink effectively filters unrelated links via similarity analysis and provides licensing information when available. Tool URL: https://github.com/danielebifolco/CodeGenLink Tool Video: https://youtu.be/M6nqjBf9_pw

cs.SE↗

Do LLMs Provide Links to Code Similar to what they Generate? A Study with Gemini and Bing CoPilot

Large Language Models (LLMs) are currently used for various software development tasks, including generating code snippets to solve specific problems. Unlike reuse from the Web, LLMs are limited in providing provenance information about the generated code, which may have important trustworthiness and legal consequences. While LLM-based assistants may provide external links that are "related" to the generated code, we do not know how relevant such links are. This paper presents the findings of an empirical study assessing the extent to which 243 and 194 code snippets, across six programming languages, generated by Bing CoPilot and Google Gemini, likely originate from the links provided by these two LLM-based assistants. The study leverages automated code similarity assessments with thorough manual analysis. The study's findings indicate that the LLM-based assistants provide a mix of relevant and irrelevant links having a different nature. Specifically, although 66% of the links from Bing CoPilot and 28% from Google Gemini are relevant, LLMs-based assistants still suffer from serious "provenance debt".

cs.SE↗