The paper presents a taxonomy-driven framework for identifying, categorizing, and explaining bias in AI-generated Python code. By extending an existing dataset and manually annotating bias categories and justifications, the authors evaluate both proprietary and open-source large language models (LLMs) for automated bias detection and explanation. Results show that models such as Gemini and Qwen3-coder achieve high classification accuracy and produce justification and code identification similarities that closely match human-authored reasoning.
arXiv:2606. 00049v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are widely recognised for their applications in natural language generation and are increasingly used for code generation tasks.
arXiv:2607. 10411v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for code smell detection tasks due to their ability to interpret program semantics.
arXiv:2606. 12231v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The adoption of AI-powered Integrated Development Environments (AI IDEs) has introduced "Rules" as a novel software artifact, allowing developers to persistently inject project-specific constraints and architectural guidelines into the context of Large Language Models (LLMs).
arXiv:2601. 19072v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large Language models (LLMs) have shown strong capabilities in code review automation, such as review comment generation, yet they suffer from hallucinations -- where the generated review comments are ungrounded in the actual code -- poses a significant challenge to the adoption of LLMs in code review workflows.
arXiv:2608. 11513v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into software engineering workflows, helping developers write, debug, test, and maintain code.
arXiv:2606. 05792v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: TLA+ has supported industrial verification at companies such as Amazon and Microsoft, yet writing correct TLA+ specifications from natural language still requires time and expertise, which limits adoption.
XAI-Arena proposes using large language models (LLMs) as judges to evaluate the quality of explainable AI (XAI) explanations, aiming for reproducibility, scalability, and multidimensional assessment. The framework assesses dimensions such as simplicity, clarity, task adequacy, trust calibration, actionability, transparency, faithfulness, and overall interpretability across different datasets, models, and stakeholder personas. Human validation shows a strong positive correlation between LLM-generated and human ratings (Spearman's rho = .693, p < .001), supporting the viability of LLM-based evaluations.
arXiv:2607. 29516v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI coding agents are generating code at volumes that exceed the capacity of traditional peer review.
Bias in natural language remains a persistent challenge in both human-written and AI-generated content, affecting domains such as journalism, education, and AI research. Most existing detection methods identify only the presence of bias, with limited support for granular detection, interpretable explanations, neutral rewriting, and openly available trained models.
arXiv:2606. 12620v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Thanks to the rapid adoption of AI code assistants powered by large language models (LLMs), industry codebases are, increasingly, a hybrid of AI- and human-authored code.
arXiv:2509.21891v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Fine-tuning large language models for code editing has typically relied on mining commits and pull requests. The working hypothesis has been...
arXiv:2609.37216v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models can generate plausible code-review comments, but such comments may contain technically incorrect claims that mislead developers...