Saman Barakat | Searcharxiv

arXiv2026

The Rise of Language Models in Mining Software Repositories: A Survey

The Mining Software Repositories (MSR) field focuses on analyzing the rich data contained in software repositories to derive actionable insights into software processes and products. Mining repositories at scale requires techniques capable of handling large volumes of heterogeneous data, a challenge for which language models (LMs) are increasingly well-suited. Since the advent of Transformer-based architectures, LMs have been rapidly adopted across a wide range of MSR tasks. This article presents a comprehensive survey of the use of LMs in MSR, based on an analysis of 177 papers. We examine how LMs are applied, the types of artifacts analyzed, which models are used, how their adoption has evolved over time, and the availability of supplementary materials and tools supporting reproducibility and reuse. Building on this analysis, we propose a taxonomy of LM applications in MSR, identify key trends shaping the field, and highlight open challenges alongside actionable directions for future research.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Regulatory Approval Is Not Enough: Gaps in Trustworthy AI Reporting in FDA-Cleared Medical Devices

Background: AI/ML-enabled medical devices are increasingly deployed in healthcare under evolving regulatory frameworks. As these systems become more integrated into clinical decision-making, there is growing expectation that they demonstrate key dimensions of trustworthy AI to support clinician, patient, and public trust. Whether publicly available regulatory documentation provides sufficient evidence to independently assess the trustworthiness of cleared AI systems remains unclear. Methods: We analysed FDA AI/ML-enabled medical device summary reports published between 2021 and 2025. Reports underwent automated keyword screening followed by multi-stage manual consensus review to identify documented evidence for the six FUTURE-AI principles: Fairness, Universality, Traceability, Usability, Robustness, and Explainability. Descriptive, temporal, and clinical-domain analyses were performed. Multivariable logistic regression assessed whether year of clearance or clinical domain predicted higher reporting transparency, defined as evidence reported for three or more principles. Results: Of 1,105 FDA summary reports screened, 519 were included. Trustworthy AI reporting was limited and uneven. Nearly one quarter (24.7%) provided no evidence for any principle, and none documented evidence across all six. Robustness was most frequently reported (57.6%), while Traceability (8.3%) and Explainability (3.5%) were the most pronounced gaps. Neither year of clearance (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.88-1.19) nor clinical domain (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.46-1.15) predicted higher reporting transparency. Interpretation: Substantial, persistent trustworthy AI reporting gaps exist in FDA documentation. Regulatory approval alone should not be considered a proxy for trustworthiness. Standardised, audit-ready reporting across the AI lifecycle is needed to support independent assessment and responsible adoption of healthcare AI.

cs.CY↗