subject

cs.SE

cs.SE: explore 92 source-linked works published from 2025 to 2026, with original documents and citations.

This collection is a preview while coverage and quality are evaluated.

Coverage and selection

Includes records with this source-supplied label or an explicit phrase match in their metadata. Matches indicate a mention, not proof that a paper uses a method or tests a material. Source versions are consolidated by DOI.

Sources: arxiv. Collection updated 2026-09-14. Counts describe this index, not the complete source archives.

arXiv2026

TRACE: Evaluating Execution Efficiency of LLM-Based Code Translation

While Large Language Models (LLMs) have substantially improved the functional correctness of code translation, the critical dimension of execution efficiency remains overlooked. We present \textbf{\textsc{Trace}}, the first benchmark to explicitly assess efficiency in LLM-translated code. \textsc{Trace} includes 1,000 efficiency-critical tasks across C++, Java, and Python, each augmented with stress tests that reveal efficiency disparities often overlooked by small-scale tests. Using \textsc{Trace}, we conduct an extensive evaluation of 28 representative LLMs and highlight several key insights: 1) Correctness and efficiency are often misaligned: the correctness leader Claude-Sonnet-4-Think achieves only moderate time efficiency, outperformed by smaller open-source LLMs such as Qwen2.5-Coder-14B-Instruct. 2) Inefficiency is both prevalent and patterned: 23.5\% of correct translations suffer from notable inefficiency, mainly arising from algorithm implementation discrepancy (11.9\%), language construct mismatch (66.4\%), and resource management inefficiency (21.7\%). 3) Inference-time prompt strategies bring only modest improvements, indicating that simple prompting alone is insufficient to improve translation efficiency. Together, our results establish execution efficiency as an essential dimension of code translation and position \textsc{Trace} as a principled foundation for efficiency-oriented evaluation.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

How Coding Agents Fail Their Users: A Large-Scale Analysis of Developer-Agent Misalignment in 20,574 Real-World Sessions

AI coding agents increasingly act directly within software environments, yet existing analyses of their failures rely on benchmark trajectories that miss how developers actually experience misalignment. We present an observational study of 20,574 coding-agent sessions from 1,639 repositories across IDE and CLI workflows. We operationalize misalignment as a breakdown made visible through developer pushback, and annotate each episode along four axes: form, cause, cost, and resolution. We identify seven recurring forms, spanning how agents read projects, interpret developer intent, follow rules, bound their actions, implement and execute code, and report progress. 90.50% of episodes impose effort and trust costs rather than irreversible system damage, yet 91.49% of visible resolutions still require explicit user correction. Misalignment patterns also differ across IDE and CLI settings, persist across adjacent sessions, and shift over time: while overall rates decline, constraint violations and inaccurate self-reporting grow in share. Our findings inform the design of training, evaluation, and interfaces for keeping coding agents aligned with real developer workflows.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

ClarifyCodeBench: Evaluating LLMs on Clarifying Ambiguous Requirements for Code Generation

Large Language Models have emerged as programming assistants. However, the efficacy of code generation is constrained by the quality of input requirements, which are frequently ambiguous, incomplete, or underspecified. While LLMs excel at one-shot code synthesis, their ability to proactively clarify intent remains underexplored, as a critical trait for robust software engineering. Existing benchmarks largely overlook this interactive bottleneck, assuming perfectly specified prompts that do not reflect the iterative nature of requirement elicitation. To bridge this gap, we introduce ClarifyCodeBench, a novel interactive benchmark for evaluating LLMs' capability in resolving requirement ambiguity. Constructed from real-world programming tasks, ClarifyCodeBench features high-quality manual annotations, including N unique ambiguity types, associated clarification questions, and corresponding ground-truth answers. Furthermore, we formalize two rigorous metrics to assess the interaction quality: Turn-discounted Key Question Rate, which penalizes inefficient questioning, and Optimal Round Adherence, which measures the precision of the elicitation process. We conduct a systematic evaluation of six state-of-the-art LLMs using ClarifyCodeBench. Our empirical results yield three critical insights: 1) Capability Decoupling: Strong code generation performance does not inherently translate to effective requirement clarification; 2) The Reasoning Paradox: While increased computational thinking enhances code correctness, it yields marginal gains in identifying ambiguities; 3) The Multi-ambiguity Ceiling: LLMs' clarification performance degrades sharply as the density of ambiguities increases, revealing a significant bottleneck in handling complex, real-world specifications. Our work underscores the necessity for future AI4SE research to transition from static synthesis to interactive elicitation.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Open-Source Autonomous Driving System Analysis and Multi-Disciplinary Hardware-in-the-Loop Research Paradigm with Reinforcement-Learning Testing and Large Language Models

Open-source autonomous driving systems provide an inspectable software foundation for intelligent vehicle research. Under real-vehicle deployment conditions, the recording and review of experimental conditions are important for interpreting system behavior and reusing experimental results. However, in a shared real-vehicle environment involving multiple vehicles, task processes, code modifications, and hardware testing feedback are often distributed across different teams and experimental stages, making it challenging to maintain continuous and reviewable experimental records. To address this limitation, this paper examines an Apollo-on-Hongqi EV environment and proposes a real-vehicle experimental framework. The framework connects multi-vehicle experiments, repository-based code reuse and software-hardware testing feedback within a unified review process. Large language models and RL-based testing serve as auxiliary components for record organization, anomaly summarization, and simulation-based candidate scenario generation. Based on this setting, this paper analyzes preliminary evidence from multi-vehicle collaborative experimentation, code and experimental-skill sharing, and software-hardware collaborative testing. The analysis shows that experimental records can be examined together with their operating conditions, providing a reviewable basis for Apollo-on-Hongqi EV research.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

ALTSTEER: Selective Safety Steering for Moving Beyond Hard Refusals to Constructive Alternatives

Safety alignment is essential for deploying large language models, requiring systems to prevent harmful compliance while preserving helpfulness on benign requests. Activation steering offers a training-free inference-time approach to safety control, but effective safety steering requires addressing two coupled questions: when to intervene and how generation should be shaped after intervention. However, existing safety steering methods remain limited along both dimensions, as their triggering mechanisms can be unstable across domains and refusal-oriented steering often yields rigid refusals rather than constructive safe guidance. To address these limitations, we propose ALTSTEER, an inference-time framework that couples selective intervention with refusal-anchored constructive redirection within a single inference pass. ALTSTEER uses an internal refusal-relevant signal to decide when to steer, and applies staged steering to shift generation from refusal-oriented control toward constructive alternatives. Evaluations on Llama-3.1 and Qwen2.5 show that ALTSTEER preserves benign utility while improving constructive safe-completion behavior, especially on models that otherwise tend to produce short refusals for harmful requests.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

DSEffi-Bench: Demystifying Large Language Models' Capability in Efficient Data Science Code Generation

Current data science (DS) code generation benchmarks equate correctness with quality, overlooking execution time differences that span orders of magnitude between correct solutions. We introduce DSEffi-Bench, the first benchmark specifically targeting execution efficiency in LLM-generated DS code, comprising 1,000 instances across 10+ DS libraries with stress-testing harnesses and human-validated references. Evaluating 16 models across 3 tiers, we find that correctness alone fails to characterize efficiency: GPT-5.4 leads in correctness (Pass, 66.9\%) but its efficiency score (B$|$P, 71.7\%) nearly matches GPT-5.4-mini (71.6\%), which solves 47 fewer tasks; Kimi-K2.5 ranks lowest in correctness among frontier models (40.2\%) yet achieves the highest efficiency score (73.6\%) across all 16 models. A human-annotated five-category taxonomy reveals that 79.1\% of efficiency deficits extend beyond algorithmic complexity to domain-specific root causes, with distinct failure profiles across model tiers and libraries. Two exploratory experiments provide initial evidence that these diagnostics can guide improvement, yielding up to +14.7\% efficiency gains via taxonomy-guided optimization and approaching Claude-Opus-4.6 Best@3 in efficiency at 13.0$\times$ lower cost via library-conditioned routing.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Update from Hell: Can Coding Agents Survive Hidden Breakage in Dependency Upgrades?

Modern software systems rely heavily on third-party dependencies, but upgrading those dependencies remains a costly maintenance activity. Dependency upgrades do not always preserve the function signatures, type systems, APIs, or runtime semantics assumed by existing code. Consequently, developers often need to perform source code adaptations to accommodate dependency-induced changes. However, such code-level changes are often not explicitly communicated to project maintainers, posing a significant challenge to software reliability. Meanwhile, coding agents have emerged as a new form of software development tool and are increasingly adopted by developers due to their automation capabilities. In this paper, we introduce DEPBENCH, a benchmark consisting of 203 real-world dependency-upgrade tasks across five package ecosystems spanning five language communities, each involving hidden code-level changes that require source code adaptation. We evaluate mainstream coding agents on DEPBENCH. The best completed configuration solves only 104/203 tasks (51.2%), with substantial variation across agent harnesses, models, and ecosystems, highlighting an important gap between current agent capabilities and real-world software maintenance needs.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Detecting DBMS Bugs by Constructing Equivalent Representations of Intermediate Query Results

Database Management Systems (DBMSs) support multiple SQL mechanisms for representing intermediate query results, including VIEWs, Common Table Expressions (CTEs), and Temporary Tables (TEMPTs). When these mechanisms are used to represent the same intermediate query result, the corresponding queries are expected to produce consistent results. However, we observe that such queries can return inconsistent results, indicating potential DBMS logic bugs. Existing approaches for detecting DBMS logic bugs have never explored result consistency across such equivalent representations. In this paper, we propose ERIQ, a novel testing approach for detecting DBMS logic bugs from the perspective of checking result consistency across Equivalent Representations of Intermediate Query Results. ERIQ constructs SQL variants using a VIEW, a CTE, or a TEMPT to represent the same intermediate query result, executes these variants, and compares their returned results. We evaluated ERIQ on four widely used open-source DBMSs: MySQL, MariaDB, Percona, and OceanBase. In total, ERIQ detected 64 bugs, 63 of which were confirmed by developers, and two have been fixed. Among the confirmed bugs, 54 were unique and previously unknown logic bugs, and one was a documentation issue.

cs.DB↗

arXiv2026

Characterising Global Platforms: Centralised, Decentralised, Federated, and Grassroots

Global digital platforms are distributed systems designed to serve entire populations, with some already serving billions of people. Here we propose atomic transactions-based multiagent transition systems and protocols as a formal framework to study them; introduce essential agents---minimal sets of agents the removal of which makes communication impossible; and show that the cardinality of essential agents partitions all global platforms into four classes: 1. Centralised (Facebook) -- one (the server) 2. Decentralised (Bitcoin) -- finite >1 (bootstrap nodes) 3. Federated (Mastodon) -- infinite but not universal (all servers) 4. Grassroots (Scuttlebutt) -- universal (all agents but one) Our illustrative formal example is a global social network, for which we provide centralised, decentralised, federated, and grassroots specifications via multiagent atomic transactions, and prove they all satisfy the same basic correctness properties, yet have different sets of essential agents as expected. We discuss informally additional global platforms---currencies, "sharing economy" apps, AI, and more. This work provides the first mathematical framework for classifying any global platform---existing or imagined---by providing a multiagent atomic-transactions specification of it and determining the cardinality of the minimal set of essential agents in the ensuing multiagent protocol. It thus provides a unifying mathematical approach for the study of global digital platforms, perhaps the most important class of distributed systems today.

cs.DC↗

arXiv2026

Evidence Absence Is Not Evidence Insufficiency: Diagnosing NEI Construction Artifacts in Fact Verification

Evidence absence is not evidence insufficiency, but fact verification benchmarks can make them observationally similar. The Not Enough Information (NEI) label is often operationalized through constructed evidence conditions, and that choice silently determines what a verifier learns. We introduce NEI-CAP, a construction-aware diagnostic protocol for insufficient-evidence evaluation. Each NEI example carries the construction family that produced it; NEI-CAP audits shortcut cues, validates hard cases through human adjudication, and tests whether competence transfers across constructions. We instantiate the protocol on SciFact, with FEVER and HoVer as bounded external controls. Across these settings, NEI competence does not transfer reliably: encoder verifiers and an instruction-tuned decoder trained on shortcut-prone constructions fail to recognize semantically related insufficient evidence, and mixed-construction training narrows but does not close the gap. Fixed-claim diagnostics further show that the evidence condition shifts confidence in the reference Support/Refute label, not only NEI recall, so an aggregate NEI score can hide which problem a model has actually solved. We therefore recommend reporting the construction family alongside the score, and distill the results into a checklist for benchmarks that carry an insufficient-evidence label.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

DeployBench: Benchmarking LLM Agents for Research Artifact Deployment

LLM agents have made rapid progress on software engineering and ML research tasks, but these advances often assume access to a working runnable environment. For research artifacts released alongside published papers, setting up such an environment from a fresh machine remains a major bottleneck. Existing environment setup benchmarks do not cover the full scope of research-artifact deployment, which involves multi-language toolchains, system-level dependencies beyond containers (e.g., GPU/CUDA and kernel configurations), and legacy artifact compatibility. We introduce DeployBench, a multi-domain benchmark of 51 research-artifact deployment tasks spanning AI/ML, computer systems, and scientific computing, covering all these dimensions. Each task is verified by a hidden pipeline that executes the paper's designated experiment and checks its outputs. Evaluating five state-of-the-art LLMs with OpenHands yields pass-rates from 7.8%-51.0%. Failures are dominated by a completion-judgment problem: 102 of 181 are agent-terminated self-stops, where the agent's pre-finish checks validate a different or weaker target than the paper-specific task requires. DeployBench highlights the gap between current agents and autonomous deployment, and offers a realistic testbed for scientific research agents.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Skills for the future software profession: beyond agentic AI!

As coding agents are rapidly changing software engineering, a natural question is: what are the core skills needed by future software engineers? To identify where software engineering is headed and thus what skills will be needed, we summarize the results of two round-tables with researchers and industrial practitioners, held in 2026 in New York and Singapore. One key finding is that verification and validation is increasing in importance as agents handle implementation, as highlighted by anecdotes from the events. From our observations, we identify the skills developers need in the agentic era of development, with implications for training and educating future software engineers in coming years.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Same Scrutiny, More Time: Eye Tracking Insights into Reviewing LLM-Labelled Code

Modern software development increasingly involves the use of large language models (LLMs) to generate code. Despite their rapid advancement, LLMs remain prone to errors and hallucinations, emphasizing the importance of careful code inspection. However, in practice, developers' trust in LLM-generated code and their willingness to review it thoroughly may differ from these recommendations. How developers actually behave when reviewing LLM-generated code remains largely unexplored. In this study, we conduct a Wizard-of-Oz experiment to examine how software engineers behave when code is explicitly labeled as LLM-generated during a code review task. We collect both behavioral data and participant feedback through eye-tracking and exit interviews. Combining Bayesian data analysis with qualitative analysis, we found that while the thoroughness of code review did not change for participants, they spent more time fixating on LLM-labelled code, indicating that the label itself influences attention. Practitioners also adapted their review strategy for LLM-labelled code by assessing the code based on specific criteria (e.g., logical correctness), or using the prompt to guide their review. These findings inform LLM-based tool design on labelling while incorporating the prompt as a software artifact. Our study reveals a gap between reviewers' intentions and actual reviewing behaviour, highlighting the need for software companies to revisit their AI policies (particularly regarding LLM-assisted development) to better support developers in reviewing LLM-generated code.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Spaghetti Architect: A Contamination-Resistant, By-Construction-Labelled, Multi-Language Code Dataset Generator

Mined code corpora are abundant but uncontrolled: a snippet's semantics, surface "messiness," and difficulty are whatever the wild contained; there is no known-optimal reference to grade against; and any public sample may already sit in a model's training set. We present Spaghetti Architect, a tool that mints code datasets with the control such corpora lack. An anti-optimization transpiler maps a clean, language-agnostic JSON intermediate representation to deliberately redundant, fully-flattened programs in five languages (Python, JavaScript, Go, Java, C++); every program is compiled, run, and checked against a reference oracle, so each instance is correct by construction. The clean IR is a known-optimal reference, messiness is dialed by strictly-nested anti-pattern profiles, each instance is labelled along two orthogonal difficulty axes, intrinsic (problem size) and incidental (presentation at fixed semantics), and contamination is resisted by minting fresh variants from a private held-out seed. We give construct-validity evidence that the quality order moves established complexity and readability metrics, and report baselines on a four-model open ladder: exact match rises with scale, and the intrinsic knob collapses arithmetic-aggregation accuracy of even the strongest model to zero. Further, development-set scores equal freshly re-minted held-out counterparts within $|Δ|\le 0.012$ (comprehension) and $\le 0.011$ (refactoring); on identical programs, refactoring equivalence ($0.73 \rightarrow 0.99$) is scale-invariant while output prediction collapses; and ablating the generator's self-annotations shows they inflate the weakest model an order of magnitude more than the strongest ($-0.173$ vs $-0.017$): the annotated ladder resolves one of three adjacent pairs where the unannotated resolves all three. Open source (MIT), dependency-free, archived under a persistent DOI.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Industrial Practice of LLM-Based Test Case Carving and Assertion Generation (Experience Paper)

Enterprise regression testing for microservice systems is often constrained by incomplete or outdated documentation. In practice, QA engineers frequently rely on real execution traffic to reconstruct business scenarios; however, turning raw traffic into replayable regression tests with stable validation logic remains labor-intensive and error-prone. This paper presents NL2Test, an end-to-end approach and tool that generates executable API regression tests from (i) a natural-language scenario description and (ii) a traffic capture recorded while executing the scenario. NL2Test addresses two coupled tasks: test case carving, which extracts a minimal replayable request sequence and reconstructs data dependencies so that dynamic values are bound from their responses rather than hard-coded; and assertion generation, which produces assertions aligned with business intent while avoiding non-deterministic fields and hallucinated paths. To improve reliability, NL2Test uses LLMs for semantic interpretation and constrained code synthesis, and uses deterministic algorithms for request filtering, dependency confirmation via value consistency, and assertion-path validation. We evaluate NL2Test on 51 industrial regression scenarios extracted from a large consumer-facing Internet company. NL2Test achieves an exact-match rate of 82.4% (42/51), and produces a functionally usable draft in 98.0% (50/51) of scenarios when allowing minor post-edits. In a 9-month production deployment starting in March 2025, NL2Test generated 3,196 test cases with an overall code adoption rate of 85.4%. These results indicate that traffic-grounded generation with deterministic guardrails can substantially reduce manual effort while improving regression automation in complex microservice environments.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Callability Is Not Operability: Controlled Interface Interventions for LLM Agents

A tool call can be perfectly valid yet still leave an autonomous agent unable to determine what to do next. For example, if an external effect commits but its response is lost, committed and uncommitted states may become indistinguishable to the agent even though they require different continuation actions. We study this gap between callability and operability: whether a tool interface exposes the action-relevant state and semantics needed for an agent to continue safely under operational uncertainty. We operationalize tool operability through Agent-First Tooling (AFT), a set of interface mechanisms spanning selective capability discovery, execution lifecycle and recovery, explicit external-effect semantics, machine-readable results, and postcondition verification. We introduce AFT-Bench, a controlled interface-intervention framework that holds the task, backend, initial state, injected failure, agent, and language model fixed while varying the interface exposed to the agent.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Drive the Thoughts: Runtime Monitoring of VLA Reasoning-Trajectory Consistency

Autonomous vehicles (AVs) operate in complex environments where failures are consequential. Sophisticated machine learning models for perception and planning are key to overcoming at least part of that complexity, but their black-box nature complicates validation and verification (V&V). The recent integration of Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models into AVs introduces a unique opportunity: besides generating trajectories, these models produce an explicit Chain-of-Thought (CoT) explaining their underlying rationale. This CoT provides a rich specification to cross-check model outputs and detect inconsistencies that may expose unsafe or unintended behavior. This paper assesses whether CoTs from a recent open driving VLA can support such monitoring. We curate DriveAlignBench, a specialized dataset from NVIDIA's Alpamayo 1.5 VLA for AVs containing 150 CoT-trajectory pairs, which we manually annotate for reliability, trajectory consistency, and safety. Our analysis reveals that 33.3% of CoTs are unreliable. Among reliable CoTs, the generated trajectory is consistent with the CoT in 74% of cases. Leveraging this potential, we propose integrating a CoT-trajectory consistency check into a runtime monitor. The check is nontrivial: CoTs express open-vocabulary, scene-relative driving commitments, while trajectories are low-level ego-motion sequences whose semantics depend on road geometry and motion context. To bridge this gap, we develop a family of automated consistency monitors. Our best monitor, lane-relative F-LLM with GPT-5.5, achieves F1 = 0.75, improving over the strongest raw-waypoint LLM baseline by +0.13 absolute F1 and over a rule-based monitor by +0.38. We release DriveAlignBench, the monitor implementations, and annotation tools at https://github.com/776styjsu/drive-the-thoughts.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Evaluating a 4B open-weights local LLM for agentic DFT workflows: a literature reproducibility audit

Agentic workflows in materials science relying on hosted commercial models face severe reproducibility, economic, and data-privacy constraints. To explore fully local agentic science, this work evaluates an open-weights Qwen3:4B model executing an autonomous scientific pipeline across varying hardware constraints. Applied to pentagonal two-dimensional materials, the system extracts parameters from unstructured text, translates them into density functional theory (DFT) inputs, and drives simulations to convergence under a strict neurosymbolic architecture where agents propose and deterministic code disposes. The workflow is guarded by verbatim text grounding and multi-pass inference unions to counteract hardware-induced structural collapse. Evaluated against 201 expert judgements, the extractor achieves 95.7% precision (95% CI 90.3-98.1%) and 67.3% recall (59.8-74.0%), ensuring extracted parameters are strictly factual. However, precision identifying absent parameters does not exceed 47.0%, establishing that the measured omission rate constitutes a loose upper bound on true literature incompleteness. Across three hardware configurations, complete GPU residency governs extraction quality more fundamentally than weight or cache precision, raising Matthews correlation from 0.414 to 0.530 at fixed quantisation and to 0.560 with an unquantised cache. A corpus-scale audit indicates only 19 (33.3%) of the 57 studies are reproducible in principle, reporting every method parameter needed to re-initialise the calculation. Driven to convergence, the workflow reproduces published lattice constants with a mean absolute relative error of 2.3% where the relaxed structure retains its prototype, establishing that lightweight open-weights models can reliably drive autonomous agentic workflows when bounded by deterministic code gates.

cond-mat.mtrl-sci↗

Compare source metadata on this page

Work	Published	Source identifier	Source
TRACE: Evaluating Execution Efficiency of LLM-Based Code Translation	2026-08-31	2508.11468	arxiv
How Coding Agents Fail Their Users: A Large-Scale Analysis of Developer-Agent Misalignment in 20,574 Real-World Sessions	2026-08-31	2605.29442	arxiv
ClarifyCodeBench: Evaluating LLMs on Clarifying Ambiguous Requirements for Code Generation	2026-08-31	2607.00711	arxiv
Open-Source Autonomous Driving System Analysis and Multi-Disciplinary Hardware-in-the-Loop Research Paradigm with Reinforcement-Learning Testing and Large Language Models	2026-08-31	2608.30179	arxiv
ALTSTEER: Selective Safety Steering for Moving Beyond Hard Refusals to Constructive Alternatives	2026-08-31	2608.30197	arxiv
DSEffi-Bench: Demystifying Large Language Models' Capability in Efficient Data Science Code Generation	2026-08-31	2608.30248	arxiv
Update from Hell: Can Coding Agents Survive Hidden Breakage in Dependency Upgrades?	2026-08-31	2608.30300	arxiv
Detecting DBMS Bugs by Constructing Equivalent Representations of Intermediate Query Results	2026-08-31	2608.30385	arxiv
Characterising Global Platforms: Centralised, Decentralised, Federated, and Grassroots	2026-08-30	2511.03286	arxiv
Evidence Absence Is Not Evidence Insufficiency: Diagnosing NEI Construction Artifacts in Fact Verification	2026-08-30	2605.26663	arxiv
DeployBench: Benchmarking LLM Agents for Research Artifact Deployment	2026-08-30	2606.05238	arxiv
Skills for the future software profession: beyond agentic AI!	2026-08-30	2606.21894	arxiv
Same Scrutiny, More Time: Eye Tracking Insights into Reviewing LLM-Labelled Code	2026-08-30	2606.26505	arxiv
Spaghetti Architect: A Contamination-Resistant, By-Construction-Labelled, Multi-Language Code Dataset Generator	2026-08-30	2607.18642	arxiv
Industrial Practice of LLM-Based Test Case Carving and Assertion Generation (Experience Paper)	2026-08-30	2607.24000	arxiv
Callability Is Not Operability: Controlled Interface Interventions for LLM Agents	2026-08-30	2608.23628	arxiv
Drive the Thoughts: Runtime Monitoring of VLA Reasoning-Trajectory Consistency	2026-08-30	2608.29583	arxiv
Evaluating a 4B open-weights local LLM for agentic DFT workflows: a literature reproducibility audit	2026-08-30	2608.29665	arxiv

These are bibliographic comparisons, not experimental rankings. Follow the original document for methods and conditions.