arXiv subjects

Ratnadira Widyasari

Publications and source records attributed to Ratnadira Widyasari.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Debt Behind the AI Boom: A Large-Scale Empirical Study of AI-Generated Code in the Wild

AI coding assistants are now widely used in software development. Software developers increasingly integrate AI-generated code into their codebases to improve productivity. Prior studies have shown that AI-generated code may contain code quality issues under controlled settings. However, we still know little about the real-world impact of AI-generated code on software quality and maintenance after it is introduced into production repositories. In other words, it remains unclear whether such issues are quickly fixed or persist and accumulate over time as technical debt. In this paper, we conduct a large-scale empirical study on the technical debt introduced by AI coding assistants in the wild. To achieve that, we built a dataset of 302.6k verified AI-authored commits from 6,299 GitHub repositories, covering five widely used AI coding assistants. For each commit, we run static analysis before and after the change to precisely attribute which code smells, correctness issues, and security issues the AI introduced. We then track each introduced issue from the introducing commit to the latest repository revision to study its lifecycle. Our results show that we identified 484,366 distinct issues, and that code smells are by far the most common type, accounting for 89.3% of all issues. Between 7.5% and 14.8% of each assistant's commits introduce at least one issue. More importantly, 22.7% of tracked AI-introduced issues still survive at the latest version of the repository. These findings show that AI-generated code can introduce long-term maintenance costs into real software projects and highlight the need for stronger quality assurance in AI-assisted development.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Engineering Sustainable Agents: A Systematic Comparison of Agentic LLMs for Developer Workflows

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in software engineering, including agentic systems that coordinate multiple agents, but impose higher computational and environmental costs. In this paper, we present a comprehensive empirical study of agentic LLM systems across five software engineering tasks: code generation, technical debt identification, code vulnerability detection, log parsing, and log analysis. For each task, we compare LLM configurations that range from a non-agentic single-query baseline to multi-agent workflows, using six open-weight LLMs, two prompt strategies, and three hardware platforms. We assess each configuration in terms of accuracy, inference latency, and energy consumption. Our results reveal substantial trade-offs between agentic complexity and energy efficiency: multi-agent designs consume on average 6.36$\times$ as much energy and run 6.07$\times$ as long as the non-agentic baseline, with worst-case slowdowns of up to 160$\times$ for individual task--hardware pairs. Accuracy gains from additional agents are limited and task-specific: multi-agent improves average vulnerability-detection accuracy, but lightweight non-agentic and single-agent configurations still dominate the Pareto front, accounting for 59 of 66 Pareto-optimal configurations. Model and prompt choice act as task-specific levers whose effective direction varies between tasks rather than as global defaults. We translate these findings into design guidelines for sustainable, task-aware LLM-based development tools.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Towards Scalable and Cost-Efficient Vulnerability Detection: A Study on Automatic Query Generation

Static analysis remains a cornerstone of software security, yet the effectiveness of tools such as CodeQL is often limited by the substantial manual effort required to develop high-coverage query suites. While large language models (LLMs) have emerged as a potential solution for automated code reasoning, their practical utility in generating structured, executable security queries remains underexplored. In this paper, we conduct an empirical study to evaluate the ability of LLMs to synthesize CodeQL queries using vulnerability data from the National Vulnerability Database. Through this investigation, we explore the potential of using LLMs as an automatic CodeQL query generator. Subsequently, we systematically evaluate the performance of various LLM architectures across a diverse set of real-world vulnerabilities, measuring their ability to improve detection coverage and precision. Our findings reveal that LLM-generated queries significantly enhance the baseline CodeQL queries, yielding 82% improvement in average F1-score. Furthermore, we provide a detailed cost- benefit analysis showing that while direct LLM-based scanning of entire repositories is often computationally and financially prohibitive, leveraging LLMs to synthesize CodeQL queries offers a scalable and cost-effective alternative for large-scale vulnerability detection. Our results suggest that LLMs can effectively bridge the gap between unstructured vulnerability reports and formal static analysis specifications, offering a scalable path toward comprehensive automated vulnerability detection.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

TitanCA: Lessons from Orchestrating LLM Agents to Discover 100+ CVEs

Software vulnerabilities remain one of the most persistent threats to modern digital infrastructure. While static application security testing (SAST) tools have long served as the first line of defense, they suffer from high false-positive rates. This article presents TitanCA, a collaborative project between Singapore Management University and GovTech Singapore that orchestrates multiple large language model (LLM)-powered agents into a unified vulnerability discovery pipeline. Applied in open-source software, TitanCA has discovered 203 confirmed zero-day vulnerabilities and yielded 118 CVEs. We describe the four-module architecture, i.e., matching, filtering, inspection, and adaptation, and share key lessons from building and deploying an LLM-based vulnerability discovery solution in practice.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2026

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.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

"Go Home Copilot, You're Drunk": Understanding Developer Responses to Agent-Generated Code Review Comments

Code review is a critical quality assurance practice in software engineering development, and AI coding agents are increasingly generating review comments on pull requests. However, little is known about how developers actually respond to such agent-generated feedback. In this paper, we present the first large-scale empirical study on the resolution of agent-generated code review comments. We analyze $54{,}791$ comments generated by five widely used coding agents (i.e., Copilot, Cursor, Codex, Devin, and Claude) across $342$ Python repositories on GitHub. We examine (1) resolution rates across agents and comment types, (2) the role of developer experience, and (3) characteristics that influence comment usefulness. Our results show that resolution rate varies considerably across agents, with Copilot accounting for the majority of resolved comments (72.9\%). Core developers resolve the majority of agent-generated feedback, particularly for \textit{design} and \textit{evolvability}-related comments, while peripheral developers are more involved in resolving \textit{functional defect} comments. Through open card sorting of 470 unresolved comment discussions, we identify \textit{ten} discussion patterns explaining why comments remain unresolved, with \textit{incorrect suggestions} and \textit{intentional design decisions} being the most prevalent. Finally, our analysis reveals that the presence of an inline \textit{code suggestion} is the strongest predictor of comment resolution, while lengthy and complex comments are less likely to be acted upon. Our findings provide insights for improving AI-generated code review feedback and its integration into development workflows.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

PoCEvolve: Generating Proof-of-Concept Exploits from Security Patches with Vulnerability-Aware Prompt Evolution

Ideally, the detailed information about a vulnerability should be made available together with the fixing commit. In practice, however, such details often become available only long after the commit, even when a CVE has already been published. During this window, the patch is already public, so attackers can reverse-engineer it, yet defenders lack the details needed to assess exposure, prioritize, and validate the fix. Executable evidence, such as a proof-of-concept (PoC) exploit, could fill this gap. Prior work has automated PoC generation, but the state-of-the-art approach, PoCGen, assumes that a detailed vulnerability report is already available, which is precisely what is missing during this window. In this paper, we first present an empirical study quantifying the long delay between the fixing commit and the availability of a detailed vulnerability report. We then introduce PoCEvolve, a vulnerability-aware prompt-evolution framework that generates PoCs directly from vulnerability-fixing commits. Given a vulnerability-fixing commit, PoCEvolve synthesizes a corresponding PoC exploit. To learn from unsuccessful generation attempts, PoCEvolve assesses the usefulness of different dimensions of vulnerability-related context, including the inferred vulnerable API and code-coverage information. These assessments guide prompt evolution towards more effective exploit-generation prompts. We evaluate PoCEvolve on SecBench.VFC.js, where PoCEvolve achieves a PoC generation success rate of 58.4%, corresponding to relative improvements of 20.7% over PoCGen and 200.0% over the LLM baseline with GPT-4o-mini. With a recent model, Qwen3.7-Plus, PoCEvolve achieves a higher success rate of 85.3%. When detailed vulnerability reports are available, PoCEvolve achieves a success rate of 71.7%, improving over PoCGen by 11.1%.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2026

From Generic to Personalized: Exploring Persona-Aware Code Review Explanations

Code review is essential for ensuring software quality and supporting collaboration, yet prior work shows that developers can interpret code review comments differently. These differences can hinder effective communication, particularly in collaborative settings. To address this challenge, we explore the potential of personified code review explanations. We report initial findings from an ongoing mixed-methods user study in which developers evaluated persona-aligned review comments across multiple code snippets. Our results suggest that preferences for explanation styles vary across problem-solving styles, experience levels, and roles. Across problem-solving style profiles, developers valued explanatory depth, learning support, practical suggestions, and risk awareness over conciseness, highlighting the need to balance personalization with clarity and trust. Based on these findings, we outline a vision for inclusive, human-centered AI-assisted code review systems that adapt feedback to developers' problem-solving preferences.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Mapping NVD Records to Their Vulnerability-fixing Commits: How Hard is It?

Mapping National Vulnerability Database (NVD) records to vulnerability-fixing commits (VFCs) is crucial for vulnerability analysis but challenging due to sparse explicit links in NVD references. This study explores this mapping's feasibility through an empirical approach. Manual analysis of NVD references showed Git references enable over 86% success, while non-Git references achieve under 14%. Using these findings, we built an automated pipeline extracting 31,942 VFCs from 20,360 NVD records (8.7% of 235,341) with 87% precision, mainly from Git references. To fill gaps, we mined six external security databases, yielding 29,254 VFCs for 18,985 records (8.1%) at 88.4% precision, and GitHub repositories, adding 3,686 VFCs for 2,795 records (1.2%) at 73% precision. Combining these, we mapped 26,710 unique records (11.3% coverage) from 7,634 projects, with overlap between NVD and external databases, plus unique GitHub contributions. Despite success with Git references, 88.7% of records remain unmapped, highlighting the difficulty without Git links. This study offers insights for enhancing vulnerability datasets and guiding future automated security research.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

AgentSZZ: Teaching the LLM Agent to Play Detective with Bug-Inducing Commits

The SZZ algorithm is the dominant technique for identifying bug-inducing commits and underpins many software engineering tasks, such as defect prediction and vulnerability analysis. Despite numerous variants, including recent LLM-based approaches, performance remains limited on developer-annotated datasets (e.g., recall of 0.552 on the Linux kernel). A key limitation is the reliance on git blame, which traces line-level changes within the same file, failing in common scenarios such as ghost and cross-file cases-making nearly one-quarter of bug-inducing commits inherently untraceable. Moreover, current approaches follow fixed pipelines that restrict iterative reasoning and exploration, unlike developers who investigate bugs through an interactive, multi-tool process. To address these challenges, we propose AgentSZZ, an agent-based framework that leverages LLM-driven agents to explore repositories and identify bug-inducing commits. Unlike prior methods, AgentSZZ integrates task-specific tools, domain knowledge, and a ReAct-style loop to enable adaptive and causal tracing of bugs. A structured compression module further improves efficiency by reducing redundant context while preserving key evidence. Extensive experiments on three widely used datasets show that AgentSZZ consistently outperforms state-of-the-art SZZ algorithms across all settings, achieving F1-score gains of up to 27.2% over prior LLM-based approaches. The improvements are especially pronounced in challenging scenarios such as cross-file and ghost commits, with recall gains of up to 300% and 60%, respectively. Ablation studies show that task-specific tools and domain knowledge are critical, while compression tool outputs reduce token consumption by over 30% with negligible impact. The replication package is available.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Revisiting Vulnerability Patch Identification on Data in the Wild

Attacks can exploit zero-day or one-day vulnerabilities that are not publicly disclosed. To detect these vulnerabilities, security researchers monitor development activities in open-source repositories to identify unreported security patches. The sheer volume of commits makes this task infeasible to accomplish manually. Consequently, security patch detectors commonly trained and evaluated on security patches linked from vulnerability reports in the National Vulnerability Database (NVD). In this study, we assess the effectiveness of these detectors when applied in-the-wild. Our results show that models trained on NVD-derived data show substantially decreased performance, with decreases in F1-score of up to 90\% when tested on in-the-wild security patches, rendering them impractical for real-world use. An analysis comparing security patches identified in-the-wild and commits linked from NVD reveals that they can be easily distinguished from each other. Security patches associated with NVD have different distribution of commit messages, vulnerability types, and composition of changes. These differences suggest that NVD may be unsuitable as the \textit{sole} source of data for training models to detect security patches. We find that constructing a dataset that combines security patches from NVD data with a small subset of manually identified security patches can improve model robustness.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

Let the Trial Begin: A Mock-Court Approach to Vulnerability Detection using LLM-Based Agents

Detecting vulnerabilities in source code remains a critical yet challenging task, especially when benign and vulnerable functions share significant similarities. In this work, we introduce VulTrial, a courtroom-inspired multi-agent framework designed to identify vulnerable code and to provide explanations. It employs four role-specific agents, which are security researcher, code author, moderator, and review board. Using GPT-4o as the base LLM, VulTrial almost doubles the efficacy of prior best-performing baselines. Additionally, we show that role-specific instruction tuning with small quantities of data significantly further boosts VulTrial's efficacy. Our extensive experiments demonstrate the efficacy of VulTrial across different LLMs, including an open-source, in-house-deployable model (LLaMA-3.1-8B), as well as the high quality of its generated explanations and its ability to uncover multiple confirmed zero-day vulnerabilities in the wild.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

Back to the Basics: Rethinking Issue-Commit Linking with LLM-Assisted Retrieval

Issue-commit linking, which connects issues with commits that fix them, is crucial for software maintenance. Existing approaches have shown promise in automatically recovering these links. Evaluations of these techniques assess their ability to identify genuine links from plausible but false links. However, these evaluations overlook the fact that, in reality, when a repository has more commits, the presence of more plausible yet unrelated commits may interfere with the tool in differentiating the correct fix commits. To address this, we propose the Realistic Distribution Setting (RDS) and use it to construct a more realistic evaluation dataset that includes 20 open-source projects. By evaluating tools on this dataset, we observe that the performance of the state-of-the-art deep learning-based approach drops by more than half, while the traditional Information Retrieval method, VSM, outperforms it. Inspired by these observations, we propose EasyLink, which utilizes a vector database as a modern Information Retrieval technique. To address the long-standing problem of the semantic gap between issues and commits, EasyLink leverages a large language model to rerank the commits retrieved from the database. Under our evaluation, EasyLink achieves an average Precision@1 of 75.03\%, improving over the state-of-the-art by over four times. Additionally, this paper provides practical guidelines for advancing research in issue-commit link recovery.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

CleanVul: Automatic Function-Level Vulnerability Detection in Code Commits Using LLM Heuristics

Accurate identification of software vulnerabilities is crucial for system integrity. Vulnerability datasets, often derived from the National Vulnerability Database (NVD) or directly from GitHub, are essential for training machine learning models to detect these security flaws. However, these datasets frequently suffer from significant noise, typically 40% to 75%, due primarily to the automatic and indiscriminate labeling of all changes in vulnerability-fixing commits (VFCs) as vulnerability-related. This misclassification occurs because not all changes in a commit aimed at fixing vulnerabilities pertain to security threats; many are routine updates like bug fixes or test improvements. This paper introduces the first methodology that uses the Large Language Model (LLM) with a heuristic enhancement to automatically identify vulnerability-fixing changes from VFCs, achieving an F1-score of 0.82. VulSifter was applied to a large-scale study, where we conducted a crawl of 127,063 repositories on GitHub, resulting in the acquisition of 5,352,105 commits. VulSifter involves utilizing an LLM to comprehend code semantics and contextual information, while applying heuristics to filter out unrelated changes. We then developed CleanVul, a high-quality dataset comprising 8,198 functions using our LLM heuristic enhancement approach, demonstrating Correctness (90.6%) comparable to established datasets such as SVEN and PrimeVul. To evaluate the CleanVul dataset, we conducted experiments focusing on fine-tuning various LLMs on CleanVul and other high-quality datasets. Evaluation results reveal that LLMs fine-tuned on CleanVul not only exhibit enhanced accuracy but also superior generalization capabilities compared to those trained on uncleaned datasets. Specifically, models trained on CleanVul and tested on PrimeVul achieve accuracy higher than those trained and tested exclusively on PrimeVul.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

R2Vul: Learning to Reason about Software Vulnerabilities with Reinforcement Learning and Structured Reasoning Distillation

Large language models (LLMs) have shown promising performance in software vulnerability detection, yet their reasoning capabilities remain unreliable. We propose R2Vul, a method that combines reinforcement learning from AI feedback (RLAIF) and structured reasoning distillation to teach small code LLMs to detect vulnerabilities while generating security-aware explanations. Unlike prior chain-of-thought and instruction tuning approaches, R2Vul rewards well-founded over deceptively plausible vulnerability explanations through RLAIF, which results in more precise detection and high-quality reasoning generation. To support RLAIF, we construct the first multilingual preference dataset for vulnerability detection, comprising 18,000 high-quality samples in C\#, JavaScript, Java, Python, and C. We evaluate R2Vul across five programming languages and against four static analysis tools, eight state-of-the-art LLM-based baselines, and various fine-tuning approaches. Our results demonstrate that a 1.5B R2Vul model exceeds the performance of its 32B teacher model and leading commercial LLMs such as Claude-4-Opus. Furthermore, we introduce a lightweight calibration step that reduces false positive rates under varying imbalanced data distributions. Finally, through qualitative analysis, we show that both LLM and human evaluators consistently rank R2Vul model's reasoning higher than other reasoning-based baselines.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

BigCodeBench: Benchmarking Code Generation with Diverse Function Calls and Complex Instructions

Task automation has been greatly empowered by the recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) via Python code, where the tasks ranging from software engineering development to general-purpose reasoning. While current benchmarks have shown that LLMs can solve tasks using programs like human developers, the majority of their evaluations are limited to short and self-contained algorithmic tasks or standalone function calls. Solving challenging and practical tasks requires the capability of utilizing diverse function calls as tools to efficiently implement functionalities like data analysis and web development. In addition, using multiple tools to solve a task needs compositional reasoning by accurately understanding complex instructions. Fulfilling both of these characteristics can pose a great challenge for LLMs.To assess how well LLMs can solve challenging and practical tasks via programs, we introduce BigCodeBench, a benchmark that challenges LLMs to invoke multiple function calls as tools from 139 libraries and 7 domains for 1,140 fine-grained tasks. To evaluate LLMs rigorously, each task encompasses 5.6 test cases with an average branch coverage of 99%. In addition, we propose a natural-language-oriented variant of BigCodeBench, BigCodeBench-Instruct, that automatically transforms the original docstrings into short instructions only with essential information. Our extensive evaluation of 60 LLMs shows that LLMs are not yet capable of following complex instructions to use function calls precisely, with scores up to 60%, significantly lower than the human performance of 97%. The results underscore the need for further advancements in this area.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

LessLeak-Bench: A First Investigation of Data Leakage in LLMs Across 83 Software Engineering Benchmarks

Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely utilized in software engineering (SE) tasks, such as code generation and automated program repair. However, their reliance on extensive and often undisclosed pre-training datasets raises significant concerns about data leakage, where the evaluation benchmark data is unintentionally ``seen'' by LLMs during the model's construction phase. The data leakage issue could largely undermine the validity of LLM-based research and evaluations. Despite the increasing use of LLMs in the SE community, there is no comprehensive study that assesses the extent of data leakage in SE benchmarks for LLMs yet. To address this gap, this paper presents the first large-scale analysis of data leakage in 83 SE benchmarks concerning LLMs. Our results show that in general, data leakage in SE benchmarks is minimal, with average leakage ratios of only 4.8\%, 2.8\%, and 0.7\% for Python, Java, and C/C++ benchmarks, respectively. However, some benchmarks exhibit relatively higher leakage ratios, which raises concerns about their bias in evaluation. For instance, QuixBugs and BigCloneBench have leakage ratios of 100.0\% and 55.7\%, respectively. Furthermore, we observe that data leakage has a substantial impact on LLM evaluation. We also identify key causes of high data leakage, such as the direct inclusion of benchmark data in pre-training datasets and the use of coding platforms like LeetCode for benchmark construction. To address the data leakage, we introduce \textbf{LessLeak-Bench}, a new benchmark that removes leaked samples from the 83 SE benchmarks, enabling more reliable LLM evaluations in future research. Our study enhances the understanding of data leakage in SE benchmarks and provides valuable insights for future research involving LLMs in SE.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

A Systematic Literature Review on Explainability for Machine/Deep Learning-based Software Engineering Research

The remarkable achievements of Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithms, particularly in Machine Learning (ML) and Deep Learning (DL), have fueled their extensive deployment across multiple sectors, including Software Engineering (SE). However, due to their black-box nature, these promising AI-driven SE models are still far from being deployed in practice. This lack of explainability poses unwanted risks for their applications in critical tasks, such as vulnerability detection, where decision-making transparency is of paramount importance. This paper endeavors to elucidate this interdisciplinary domain by presenting a systematic literature review of approaches that aim to improve the explainability of AI models within the context of SE. The review canvasses work appearing in the most prominent SE & AI conferences and journals, and spans 108 papers across 23 unique SE tasks. Based on three key Research Questions (RQs), we aim to (1) summarize the SE tasks where XAI techniques have shown success to date; (2) classify and analyze different XAI techniques; and (3) investigate existing evaluation approaches. Based on our findings, we identified a set of challenges remaining to be addressed in existing studies, together with a set of guidelines highlighting potential opportunities we deemed appropriate and important for future work.

cs.SE↗