arXiv subjects

Georgios Liargkovas

Publications and source records attributed to Georgios Liargkovas.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Agentic Data Environments

Autonomous agents promise substantial gains in speed, scale, and labor efficiency, but their failures can impose abrupt and often irreversible costs. The central challenge for agentic automation is therefore to increase the benefits of automation while bounding the consequences of failure. While databases remain central to modern computing, agents operate over a broader data environment spanning files, APIs, applications, and system state. In this talk, I will outline early work on Agentic Data Environments -- the execution substrate in which agents operate -- that both amplify agent capabilities and enforce safety guarantees. This perspective reframes data systems from passive stores of state into active substrates for safe, reliable execution.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

TuxBot: Semantic-Aware Online OS Tuning with Large Language Models

Online OS tuning can improve long-running services, but existing controllers are poorly matched to live hosts. They treat scheduler, power, memory, and I/O controls as black-box variables and optimize a scalar reward. This view ignores cross-knob policy structure, breaks down when application metrics are unavailable, and can send a running service into degraded regions that persist after the bad setting is removed. We present TuxBot, a host-side framework for steady-state OS tuning with bounded language-model guidance. TuxBot turns knob schemas, telemetry, current configuration, recent action--response history, and retrieved prior runs into a compact decision context. A fast loop proposes low-latency updates, a slower loop periodically revises the search strategy, and every proposed change passes through typed validation before reaching kernel or sysctl interfaces. This lets the controller reason about OS-control meaning and indirect performance signals while keeping model cost, latency, and authority constrained. We evaluate TuxBot on 13 live workloads from five benchmark suites while tuning up to 41 Linux parameters. Across the suite, TuxBot improves stable-phase performance by 72.5% over default settings and by 153.3% relative to the strongest non-LLM baseline. A 30-window session costs about $0.20 in model calls. With only host-level metrics, TuxBot still outperforms baselines given direct application objectives by 93.7 percentage points, while avoiding severe degraded regions reached by structure-blind exploration.

cs.OS↗

arXiv2025

Speculative Actions: A Lossless Framework for Faster Agentic Systems

AI agents are increasingly deployed in complex, interactive environments, yet their runtime remains a major bottleneck for training, evaluation, and real-world use. Typical agent behavior unfolds sequentially, with each action requiring an API call that can incur substantial latency. For example, a game of chess between two state-of-the-art agents can take hours. We introduce Speculative Actions, a lossless acceleration framework for general agentic systems. Inspired by speculative execution in microprocessors and speculative decoding in LLM inference, our method uses faster models to predict likely future actions and execute them in parallel, committing only when predictions match. We evaluate speculative actions across gaming, e-commerce, and web search environments, and additionally study a lossy extension in an operating systems setting. Across domains, we achieve up to 55% next-action prediction accuracy, translating into up to 20% latency reductions. Finally, we present a cost-latency analysis that formalizes the tradeoff between speculative breadth and time savings. This analysis enables principled tuning and selective branch launching to ensure that multi-branch speculation delivers practical speedups without prohibitive cost growth.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2023

Quieting the Static: A Study of Static Analysis Alert Suppressions

Static analysis tools are commonly used to detect defects before the code is released. Previous research has focused on their overall effectiveness and their ability to detect defects. However, little is known about the usage patterns of warning suppressions: the configurations developers set up in order to prevent the appearance of specific warnings. We address this gap by analyzing how often are warning suppression features used, which warning suppression features are used and for what purpose, and also how could the use of warning suppression annotations be avoided. To answer these questions we examine 1\,425 open-source Java-based projects that utilize Findbugs or Spotbugs for warning-suppressing configurations and source code annotations. We find that although most warnings are suppressed, only a small portion of them get frequently suppressed. Contrary to expectations, false positives account for a minor proportion of suppressions. A significant number of suppressions introduce technical debt, suggesting potential disregard for code quality or a lack of appropriate guidance from the tool. Misleading suggestions and incorrect assumptions also lead to suppressions. Findings underscore the need for better communication and education related to the use of static analysis tools, improved bug pattern definitions, and better code annotation. Future research can extend these findings to other static analysis tools, and apply them to improve the effectiveness of static analysis.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2021

Software Engineering Education Knowledge Versus Industrial Needs

Contribution: Determine and analyze the gap between software practitioners' education outlined in the 2014IEEE/ACM Software Engineering Education Knowledge (SEEK) and industrial needs pointed by Wikipedia articles referenced in Stack Overflow (SO) posts. Background: Previous work has uncovered deficiencies in the coverage of computer fundamentals, people skills, software processes, and human-computer interaction, suggesting rebalancing. Research Questions: 1) To what extent are developers' needs, in terms of Wikipedia articles referenced in SO posts, covered by the SEEK knowledge units? 2) How does the popularity of Wikipedia articles relate to their SEEK coverage? 3) What areas of computing knowledge can be better covered by the SEEK knowledge units? 4) Why are Wikipedia articles covered by the SEEK knowledge units cited on SO? Methodology: Wikipedia articles were systematically collected from SO posts. The most cited were manually mapped to the SEEK knowledge units, assessed according to their degree of coverage. Articles insufficiently covered by the SEEK were classified by hand using the 2012 ACM Computing Classification System. A sample of posts referencing sufficiently covered articles was manually analyzed. A survey was conducted on software practitioners to validate the study findings. Findings: SEEK appears to cover sufficiently computer science fundamentals, software design and mathematical concepts, but less so areas like the World Wide Web, software engineering components, and computer graphics. Developers seek advice, best practices and explanations about software topics, and code review assistance. Future SEEK models and the computing education could dive deeper in information systems, design, testing, security, and soft skills.

cs.SE↗