SearcharxivSearch

arXiv subjects

Liehao Li

Publications and source records attributed to Liehao Li.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

Benchmarking Requirement-to-Architecture Generation with Hybrid Evaluation

Software architecture serves as the blueprint of a software system, capturing high-level structural decisions that shape downstream implementation and system quality. Despite this central role, generating architecture designs from requirement documents remains underexplored, with limited task-specific benchmarks for generation or rigorous evaluation. To bridge this gap, we introduce R2ABench, a benchmark for requirements-to-architecture (R2A) reasoning. R2ABench contains 68 projects with human-validated references collected from both educational-style settings and GitHub repositories. Each project is packaged as a unified instance that provides a structured software requirements specification (SRS), a reference architecture view in PlantUML, and the corresponding source requirement artifacts. To evaluate generated architecture views, we design a layered hybrid evaluation framework spanning syntax validation, structural graph diagnostics, and semantic and evidence-based architecture scoring. Using this framework, we conduct a comprehensive empirical study of state-of-the-art LLMs and agents on R2ABench. We find that current systems can often generate syntactically valid and readable architecture views, but still struggle with relation-level architecture modeling across both subsets: component identification is substantially stronger than edge recovery, and edge hallucination is the dominant structural failure mode. Semantically, structural fidelity does not guarantee requirement coverage or traceability, which emerge as the primary quality gaps. The associated data files are available at https://figshare.com/s/01f0a5fb6243a6a60f23.

cs.SE

Predicting Developer Acceptance of AI-Generated Code Suggestions

AI-assisted programming tools are widely adopted, yet their practical utility is often undermined by undesired suggestions that interrupt developer workflows and cause frustration. While existing research has explored developer-AI interactions when programming qualitatively, a significant gap remains in quantitative analysis of developers' acceptance of AI-generated code suggestions, partly because the necessary fine-grained interaction data is often proprietary. To bridge this gap, this paper conducts an empirical study using 66,329 industrial developer-AI interactions from a large technology company. We analyze features that are significantly different between accepted code suggestions and rejected ones. We find that accepted suggestions are characterized by significantly higher historical acceptance counts and ratios for both developers and projects, longer generation intervals, shorter preceding code context in the project, and older IDE versions. Based on these findings, we introduce CSAP (Code Suggestion Acceptance Prediction) to predict whether a developer will accept the code suggestion before it is displayed. Our evaluation of CSAP shows that it achieves the accuracy of 0.973 and 0.922 on imbalanced and balanced dataset respectively. Compared to a large language model baseline and an in-production industrial filter, CSAP relatively improves the accuracy by 12.6\% and 69.5\% on imbalanced dataset, and improves the accuracy by 87.0\% and 140.1\% on balanced dataset. Our results demonstrate that targeted personalization is a powerful approach for filtering out code suggestions with predicted rejection and reduce developer interruption. To the best of our knowledge, it is the first quantitative study of code suggestion acceptance on large-scale industrial data, and this work also sheds light on an important research direction of AI-assisted programming.

cs.SE

An Empirical Study on Failures in Automated Issue Solving

Automated issue solving seeks to autonomously identify and repair defective code snippets across an entire codebase. SWE-Bench has emerged as the most widely adopted benchmark for evaluating progress in this area. While LLM-based agentic tools show great promise, they still fail on a substantial portion of tasks. Moreover, current evaluations primarily report aggregate issue-solving rates, which obscure the underlying causes of success and failure, making it challenging to diagnose model weaknesses or guide targeted improvements. To bridge this gap, we first analyze the performance and efficiency of three SOTA tools, spanning both pipeline-based and agentic architectures, in automated issue solving tasks of SWE-Bench-Verified under varying task characteristics. Furthermore, to move from high-level performance metrics to underlying cause analysis, we conducted a systematic manual analysis of 150 failed instances. From this analysis, we developed a comprehensive taxonomy of failure modes comprising 3 primary phases, 9 main categories, and 25 fine-grained subcategories. Then we systematically analyze the distribution of the identified failure modes, the results reveal distinct failure fingerprints between the two architectural paradigms, with the majority of agentic failures stemming from flawed reasoning and cognitive deadlocks. Motivated by these insights, we propose a collaborative Expert-Executor framework. It introduces a supervisory Expert agent tasked with providing strategic oversight and course-correction for a primary Executor agent. This architecture is designed to correct flawed reasoning and break the cognitive deadlocks that frequently lead to failure. Experiments show that our framework solves 22.2% of previously intractable issues for a leading single agent. These findings pave the way for building more robust agents through diagnostic evaluation and collaborative design.

cs.SE