arXiv:2606. 15074v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for technical document generation, yet single-model outputs often suffer from over-engineering, security blind spots, and incomplete coverage.
arXiv:2605. 17480v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Multi-agent systems extend large language models (LLMs) by decomposing tasks among specialized agents, but their distributed decision process creates new attack surfaces.
The paper investigates Self‑Generated Text Recognition (SGTR), the ability of large language models (LLMs) to identify their own outputs. By evaluating 13–21 models across 6 experimental designs, it shows that SGTR accuracy varies with evaluation format, conversation structure, and task domain, and that a quality‑heuristic bias dominates results. The study also finds that fine‑tuning for SGTR in one setting can generalize to others and may cause models to prefer their own outputs when judging, highlighting potential safety concerns.
Large Language Models (LLMs) are evolving from simple code completion tools to repository‑scale agents capable of retrieving context, editing files, executing tools, and engaging in security‑sensitive workflows. A structured survey up to May 31 2026 reviews LLM work across software engineering and security tasks, adaptation mechanisms, artifact granularity, and evaluation design, and introduces an assurance framework that separates functional correctness, security, operational reliability, evidence provenance, and agent authority. The review highlights that while execution feedback and repository access improve engineering task completion, they do not guarantee security, and static‑analysis labels rarely ensure deployable correctness; it also identifies common validity threats and proposes a minimum reporting protocol and a research agenda focused on jointly secure‑and‑functional benchmarks, repository‑scale threat models, calibrated human oversight, longitudinal maintainability evidence, and reproducible agent evaluation.
The paper introduces CoSLR, a Human‑AI collaborative system for systematic literature reviews that incorporates mandatory human checkpoints within a three‑phase pipeline using large language models and Retrieval‑Augmented Generation. In a survey of 63 participants, 42.9 % rated the system’s usability highly, yet 34.9 % indicated they would trust AI‑generated summaries without further human verification after brief interaction. The study highlights that effective human oversight in AI‑assisted literature reviews depends on users’ willingness to engage with the checkpoints, underscoring a calibration issue that interface design must directly address.
arXiv:2607. 20216v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Malware analysis demands rapid interpretation of complex detonation reports spanning filesystem, network, and process behaviours.
arXiv:2603. 19423v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents increasingly rely on external tools (file operations, API calls, database transactions) to autonomously complete complex multi-step tasks.
arXiv:2603. 03824v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Humans often become more self-aware under threat, yet can lose self-awareness when absorbed in a task; we hypothesize that language models exhibit environment-dependent \textit{evaluation awareness}.
arXiv:2606. 25476v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance across natural language processing tasks, yet their deployment in high-stakes applications raises critical concerns regarding reliability, safety, and trustworthiness.
arXiv:2605. 28591v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The validity of AI safety evaluations depends on models behaving consistently across controlled and deployment settings.
arXiv:2606. 01490v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We present a controlled experiment evaluating 12 multi-agent LLM collaboration topologies for software architecture design.
arXiv:2608.21374v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Literature reviews are essential to scientific progress, but rigorously evaluating automatically generated reviews remains difficult because many aspec...
Context: Generative AI (GenAI) and Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for academic tasks in software engineering and beyond, including systematic literature reviews (SLRs). However, while capable of summarizing text, there is no guarantee they can meet the rigour, reliability, and transparency that SLRs require.