arXiv:2509. 20491v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Machine Learning (ML) pipelines encode quality-relevant decisions across data preparation, training, evaluation, and configuration code.
By Brahim Mahmoudi, Naouel Moha, Quentin Sti\'evenart, Florent Avellaneda
arXiv:2607. 01867v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The use of LLMs in software development has become increasingly widespread on tasks such as code generation and summarization.
By Yongyi Ji, Jiaji Wang, Yi Zhou, Fuxiang Chen, Hongji Yang
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.
By Istiaq Ahmed Fahad, Kamruzzaman Asif, Md. Nurul Ahad Tawhid
The use of LLMs in software development has become increasingly widespread on tasks such as code generation and summarization. Reports from large technology companies showed that around 20% to 30% of their code are generated by LLMs.
The paper introduces CodeScan, a black-box, vulnerability-oriented scanning framework designed to detect data poisoning and backdoor attacks in code generation large language models (LLMs). CodeScan operates by analyzing structural similarities across multiple code generations, normalizing them with abstract syntax tree (AST) techniques, and then applying LLM-based vulnerability analysis to identify recurring insecure patterns. Evaluations on 117 models across three architectures and multiple sizes show over 97% detection accuracy with fewer false positives compared to prior methods.
By Shenao Yan, Shan Jin, Shimaa Ahmed, Sunpreet Singh Arora, Yiwei Cai, Yizhen Wang, Yuan Hong
arXiv:2610.27868v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Code translation converts source code from one programming language to another while preserving its functionality. Although Large Language Models (LL...
By Yali Du, Yunji Zhang, Ming Li
The paper investigates whether code large language models (CodeLLMs) inadvertently reproduce proprietary or sensitive code by evaluating seven state‑of‑the‑art training data detection (TDD) methods on eight CodeLLMs. It introduces CodeSnitch, a benchmark of 9,000 function‑level code samples across three languages, each labeled as included or excluded from training data, and applies mutation strategies based on the Type‑1 to Type‑4 code clone taxonomy to test TDD robustness. The study offers a systematic assessment of current TDD techniques for code and suggests directions for developing more effective detection methods.
By Tianlin Li, Yunxiang Wei, Zhiming Li, Aishan Liu, Qing Guo, Xianglong Liu, Dongning Sun, Yang Liu
arXiv:2606. 08840v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Code generation models are typically compared using compact execution benchmarks and aggregate pass rates, but such summaries obscure how performance varies across programming languages, problem families, and failure modes.
By Sayed Erfan Arefin
The study investigates whether large language models can extract Architectural Design Decisions (ADDs) from source code commits. Using four LLMs (Gemini 3 Pro, DeepSeek R1, Kimi K2, Qwen3) with zero‑shot and few‑shot prompting on 30 developer‑written ADDs, the authors evaluate outputs with ROUGE‑L, BLEU, METEOR, and BERTScore. Results show all models achieve a BERT‑F1 above 0.81, with few‑shot prompting slightly improving alignment, but the generated ADDs tend to be overly long, implementation‑focused, and lack the rationale behind the decisions.
By Amey Karan, Rudra Dhar, Mohamed Soliman, Karthik Vaidhyanathan
arXiv:2606. 04739v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have shown strong potential for automated software vulnerability detection, particularly in retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) settings.
By Sabrina Kaniewski, Fabian Schmidt, Tobias Heer
arXiv:2508. 16131v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Code completion entails the task of providing missing tokens given a surrounding context.
By Zoe Kotti, Konstantina Dritsa, Diomidis Spinellis, Panos Louridas
The paper introduces Program Executability Prediction (PrEx), a task that asks large language models (LLMs) to determine whether a program is semantically valid or invalid and, if invalid, to identify the violated formal rule. To evaluate this, the authors create a dataset of systematically generated invalid programs derived from valid ones and test open‑source coding LLMs across different semantic formalisms, semantic shifts, and program splits (human‑written, LLM‑translated, fuzzer‑generated). Results show that LLMs rely more on pre‑training priors than on the provided semantics, performing poorly on modified semantics and with increasing program complexity.
By Lara Marinov, Aditya Thimmaiah, Jayanth Srinivasa, Junyi Jessy Li, Milos Gligoric