SearcharxivSearch

arXiv subjects

Jason Cusati

Publications and source records attributed to Jason Cusati.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

Virginia Tech Transportation Safety Index (VTTSI)

The Virginia Tech Transportation Safety Index (VTTSI) is a real-time, cloud-native framework for quantifying intersection safety using multimodal connected-vehicle telemetry and multi-year VDOT crash history. Traditional crash-based methods rely on lagged, aggregated data and cannot reflect rapidly changing operational conditions. VTTSI addresses this gap through a hybrid modeling approach that fuses Empirical Bayes (EB) crash stabilization, uplift factors derived from speed and conflict behavior, and a CRITIC-weighted multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) module combining SAW, EDAS, and CODAS. The system produces interpretable, exposure-adjusted safety scores on a 0--100 scale every 15 minutes. A cloud-deployed architecture built on FastAPI, PostgreSQL, PostGIS, and Streamlit supports interactive visualization of traffic volumes, VRU exposure, speed variance, and real-time incident activity. Validation across intersections demonstrates coherent diurnal patterns, consistency among MCDM methods, and sensitivity to observable operational turbulence. Sensitivity analysis further shows that the RT--SI is robust to parameter perturbations, with deviations typically remaining below one point on the 0--100 scale. By integrating long-term crash risk with short-term behavioral dynamics, VTTSI provides a transparent, adaptive, and proactive safety-monitoring framework suitable for transportation agencies, traffic management centers, fleet operators, and autonomous vehicle systems.%~\cite{persaud2007, montella2020systemic, schultz2025_surrogate, Amraji2025CombinedSafetyIndex}.

cs.CY

From Papers to Progress: Rethinking Knowledge Accumulation in Software Engineering

Software engineering research has experienced rapid growth in both output and participation over the past decades. Yet concerns persist about the field's ability to accumulate, integrate, and reuse knowledge in ways that support long-term progress. To better understand how the community itself perceives these challenges, we analyze responses from the ICSE 2026 Future of Software Engineering pre-survey, which captures perspectives from 280 globally distributed and highly experienced researchers. Our analysis reveals a tension between increasing research productivity and the limited mechanisms available for synthesizing results, tracking evolving claims, and supporting cumulative understanding over time. Building on these observations, we diagnose four interrelated structural breakdowns: papers function as isolated knowledge units with claims embedded in prose; context and provenance are lost as knowledge moves through the publication pipeline; claims evolve without systematic tracking; and incentive structures favor novelty over consolidation. We argue that addressing these barriers requires rethinking the fundamental properties of research artifacts. We articulate four technology-agnostic principles for future research artifacts: structured and interpretable representations of claims and evidence; inspectable and provenance-aware documentation of methodological decisions; long-lived and reusable substrates that evolve beyond publication; and governance mechanisms that align individual incentives with collective knowledge-building goals. We discuss implications for research practice, publication norms, and community infrastructure, positioning FOSE as a venue for experimenting with alternative artifact designs that support cumulative scientific progress.

cs.SE

Exploring the Evidence-Based SE Beliefs of Generative AI Tools

Background: Recent innovations in generative artificial intelligence (AI) have transformed how programmers develop and maintain software. The advanced capabilities of generative AI tools in supporting development tasks have led to a rise in their adoption within software engineering (SE) workflows. However, little is known about how AI tools perceive evidence-based practices supported by empirical SE research. Aim: To this end, we explore the "beliefs" of generative AI tools increasingly used to support software development in practice. Method: We conduct a preliminary evaluation conceptually replicating prior work to investigate 17 evidence-based claims across five generative AI tools. Results: Our findings demonstrate generative AI tools have ambiguous beliefs regarding research claims and lack credible evidence to support responses. Conclusions: Based on our results, we provide implications for practitioners integrating generative AI-based systems into development contexts and shed light on future research directions to enhance the reliability and trustworthiness of generative AI -- aiming to increase awareness and adoption of evidence-based SE research findings in practice.

cs.SE