overfeed.news
Anuncio

Privum

Construimos, protegemos y operamos tu infraestructura digital.

Software, sistemas de IA, pruebas de penetración y nube segura para empresas.

Hablar con Privum

Tema

Agentes

3059documentos

252últimos 7 días

arXiv AI Papers

Towards Automatically Pruning Logging Code with Coding Agents: How Far Are We?

Logging code supports debugging, monitoring, and software maintenance, but excessive logging can add noise, impose runtime overhead, and obscure diagnostic information. While prior research has extensively studied logging code generation and modification, logging removal remains comparatively underexplored. In this paper, we study developer logging removal practices and explore the use of coding agents for this task. We extract and manually validate logging removal cases from Python and Java repositories and derive 10 removal patterns and 11 removal reasons that characterize how and why logging code was removed in real-world software changes. We further construct LogRem, a dataset of 387 real-world cases covering direct logging statement removal, logging infrastructure removal, and logging replacement. We evaluate four coding agents with multiple model settings and compare their outputs with accepted real-world changes. Although 95.6% to 100.0% of outputs pass validity checks, only 11.1% to 19.6% remove the same logging code as the corresponding real-world change while preserving unrelated code. Agents differ through missed removals, extra removals, and unrelated code edits, with substantial variation across logging removal categories and trajectories. Execution cost varies widely, but higher cost does not consistently yield closer alignment. Commit messages and developer discussions provide the largest alignment gains, while taxonomy guidance consistently reduces runtime. Overall, our study establishes logging removal as a distinct software maintenance task and shows that reliable automation depends on accurately determining removal scope while preserving necessary code. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to examine logging code removal from this perspective.

en
arXiv AI Papers

Organising Trajectory Evidence for Language-Model Agent Assurance: Fragments, Methods, and the Residual

Methods for assessing language-model agents include rule checkers over logs, analyses of skill coverage and composition, support checkers, prefix monitors, execution gates, and rare-event estimators. Each observes a different part of a run and makes a claim of a different strength, and no common account says how these claims combine or what they leave unchecked. We give one, built from a logic, information fragments, and an assurance ledger. Requirements are formulas of a two-tier logic: an outer finite-trace temporal logic over recorded events, and an inner logic of standing over the argument structure that the agent's recorded context supports at a decision. A rule violation and an action taken on withdrawn support are thus formulas of one language. The information available to an assessor, to the agent, and to an execution gate defines fragments of that language; each checking method decides one fragment and returns a typed claim: exact, on a named test suite, a risk bound, or descriptive. The ledger merges the evidence and classifies every obligation as established, addressed but not established, or unaddressed. On 456 released τ^2-bench telecom trajectories, the benchmark oracle flags 231 runs; adding a rule checker, a support stand-in, and a prefix-monitor baseline raises the union to 391, 401, and 407, each contributing flags the others miss, and a gate makes one prohibition exact on a gated deployment. The 49 unflagged runs and the unmet or unaddressed obligations form the residual. Discovery makes unknown requirements explicit, and new or stronger checkers then reduce it.

en
arXiv AI Papers

VoCa: Designing Speech-Canvas Interaction for Voice-Based Conversational Agents

People write and sketch while speaking to explain, organize, and develop content together. Inspired by these practices, we investigate how voice agents can use a canvas alongside speech in multi-turn conversations with users. We conducted a two-part formative study: an observational study of how pairs coordinated speech and boardwork, followed by a design workshop that informed a design space for speech-canvas interaction with voice agents. Building on these insights, we developed VoCa, a voice agent that coordinates speech with visual object creation, annotation, and attention guidance. A five-day deployment with 18 participants examined usability, experiences of speech-canvas interaction, patterns of use, and desired improvements. Participants' experiences highlighted opportunities for speech-canvas interaction in learning, work, and daily life, alongside challenges in coordinating what agents say and show in ways users can follow and influence. These findings inform how voice agents can use a canvas alongside speech in conversation.

en
arXiv AI Papers

Not Self-Decidable: LLMs Cannot Draw the Boundary of What an Agent Verifier Can Check

A verifier for an agent faces rules of two kinds: the ones a fixed check can settle and the ones that require a judge. A team that derives its own checks fixes that split up front. Where the requirements come from outside, as in finance, healthcare and law, the agent enforces rules it did not write, so the split falls to runtime, recurring for every predicate of every rule on every action at a rate no reviewer can audit. Every escalation scheme assumes a model can make that decision itself, that it is self-decidable. Across six corpora, including the EU AI Act, FINRA guidance and a deployed credit agent, we collect roughly 22,000 labels from four models built by three labs. They agree almost perfectly where the answer is obvious and collapse on regulatory text; their errors run in opposite directions, so no model can be trusted as the conservative choice; and on the deployed agent's own rule-set they err together, over-claiming that a fixed check will do, the direction that never gets escalated. We introduce CoVer (corroborate-then-verify), which treats unanimity as a nomination, admitting a predicate only when the check synthesized for it survives intervention, reading fields the agent cannot write and holding under deterministic rewording. That gate rejects most of what corroboration wrongly admits, at a cost in coverage we report rather than tune away. The obvious alternative, agreement with a reference judge, certifies nothing: it climbs from 30% to 77% across calibration bands while the genuinely decidable share does not move, because a judge drawn from the population under indictment ratifies the blind spot it shares. Self-decidability is not a capability to elicit from a model but a boundary the verifier must construct.

en
arXiv AI Papers

Penumbra: Sample-Efficient Adversarial Search for Regulatory Obligations

Agents are entering finance, healthcare and law, sectors where a violation leaves no lexical signature and carries real penalties. Whether an omission is material, or a disclosure sufficient, depends on what the response left out. Probing such an obligation means finding responses one minimal edit from flipping compliance, and every probe costs a generation and two adjudications, so the binding constraint on regulatory red-teaming is sample efficiency, not volume. We introduce Penumbra, an adversarial search that walks from a verified anchor under an expanding edit budget until a two-evaluator committee changes its verdict, and emits the two adjacent responses that straddle the change. Allocation is adaptive, and the objective is coverage of the defeat surface: distinct (obligation x defeat mode) cells resolved per candidate. At matched budget, adaptive allocation reaches uniform allocation's full-budget coverage on 59% of the candidates; at equal records it covers 1.43x the defeat modes of naive enumeration, and the gain is confined to the axis it targets. On 60 screened obligations of a financial advisory constitution, Penumbra returns 144 pairs, each a compliant and a violating response that the committee places on opposite sides of the boundary, differing by a handful of words where a model asked for both directly produces texts sharing almost nothing. A second constitution, for clinical triage, reproduces this on 18 obligations: 49 pairs at the same tightness, with the same modes hardest. Pairs like these show where an obligation's own terms stop deciding, which is what an agent deployed under it must be tested against, and the search finds them at a cost that scales with the boundary, not the text.

en
arXiv AI Papers

Understanding Errors in LLM-Based Question Answering over Imperfect Tables

We investigate error discovery and handling in question answering over imperfect tables through controlled studies across three large language models (LLMs) on human-reviewed RADAR-T examples. Answering questions over these tables requires handling errors that can affect the answer. We vary row order and compare original, error-marked, and repaired tables to test whether discovery depends on where errors appear and whether providing their locations is sufficient for accurate question answering. First, reordering rows changes error discovery even when the table contents and gold answer remain unchanged. Complete discovery is higher for back than front placements and, averaged over the tested mean positions, for compact than widely spaced layouts. Second, providing verified error locations alone is insufficient for accurate QA, leaving a substantial accuracy gap between error-marked and repaired tables. Providing tables with human-reviewed repairs already applied raises code-assisted QA accuracy by 39.0-59.1 percentage points over the error-marked tables across the three systems. GBDI, a simple workflow, puts these findings into practice by combining error discovery across shuffled table views with explicit guidance for verifying and handling the reported errors. On RADAR-T, GBDI raises observed QA accuracy by 3.8-18.5 percentage points over a code-agent baseline across five systems. These results highlight the importance of both reliable error discovery and effective error handling in question answering over imperfect tables. Our anonymous repository is available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/GBDI-ICLR-2027-85BD/

en
arXiv AI Papers

When Debate Helps: Proposal Supply and Verification-Aware Readout in Multi-Agent Reasoning

Multi-agent debate can improve reasoning, yet often fails to beat simple majority voting. We argue that successful debate requires two distinct mechanisms: proposal supply must surface a correct answer, and readout must identify that answer when voting misses it. We formalize the first requirement through recoverable headroom, which measures cases where a correct proposal is available but the majority answer is wrong. For the second, we develop Latent Verification Debate (LVD), an accounting model in which candidate proposals receive answer-specific verification evidence before final generation. Controlled fixed-proposal interventions estimate this latent effect in equivalent peer-support units and show that correct evidence changes answer probabilities and generated decisions while proposal supply remains fixed. To improve proposal supply, we construct societies from neural-thicket agents using labeled and label-free coverage objectives. Across two backbones and matched-budget reasoning benchmarks, coverage-selected societies increase complementary proposal supply and improve aggregate accuracy in repeated stochastic evaluations. Round-level controls further show that interaction provides gains beyond applying the same finalizer directly to the initial proposals. These results identify proposal coverage and truth-sensitive evidence use as complementary conditions for debate to outperform voting. Code is available at https://github.com/Wang-ML-Lab/when-debate-helps.

en
arXiv AI Papers

MASBench: Benchmarking LLM-based Multi-Agent Collaboration under Partial Observability

Large language models (LLMs) have progressively evolved into the core of autonomous agents. Building on this progress, LLM-based multi-agent systems (MAS) coordinate multiple agents into a synergistic team to accomplish complex tasks that exceed the capabilities of individual agents. The effectiveness of such systems depends not only on the agents themselves, but also on how collaboration mechanisms are designed and organized. Note that real-world collaboration is typically partially observable, where each agent can only access partial information about the environment due to physical or privacy-related constraints. However, many existing multi-agent benchmarks assume global observability, and leave limited support for systematically evaluating collaboration mechanisms. To bridge this gap, we introduce MASBench, a multi-agent collaboration benchmark designed under partially observable constraints. It is organized into three progressive task categories: Reasoning, Scheduling, and Game. Through this structure, we progressively evaluate three representative collaboration mechanisms: Protocol, Memory, and Routing. MASBench further provides deterministic evaluation metrics, including performance score, communication cost, and cost effectiveness, to characterize both collaboration outcomes and communication overhead. Experiments across diverse LLM backbones and mechanism configurations offer empirical guidance for effective MAS design. Code is available at: https://github.com/BUPT-GAMMA/MASBench

en
arXiv AI Papers

RETRACE: From Entangled Repair Histories to Reusable Experience for CI Repair

Large language model (LLM) agents increasingly reuse prior experience, but most approaches assume that problems and solutions are already aligned. Software histories rarely provide this alignment: a pull request (PR) may contain multiple continuous integration (CI) problems, failed attempts, reverted edits, and unrelated changes, obscuring which changes resolve each problem. We present RETRACE, a framework for reconstructing problem-level repair experience from such histories. RETRACE combines an endpoint view that reasons backward from changes retained in the passing revision with a development view that traces repair evolution forward through commit history. CI execution evidence reconciles the two views, and the recovered experience is represented at three abstraction levels, from concrete fixes to transferable repair patterns. For new failures, RETRACE retrieves relevant problem-level experience to guide repair. On CI-REPAIR-BENCH, comprising 565 PR-level repairs from 101 repositories across 12 failure categories, RETRACE improves mini-SWE-agent Pass@1 from 19.6% to 31.9% with MiniMax-M2.5 and from 23.3% to 32.8% with DeepSeek-V4-Flash. On a matched subset, Codex improves from 15.5% to 27.5%. Combining both views consistently outperforms either alone, showing that recovering problem-change alignment enables historical CI repairs to serve as reusable repair experience.

en
arXiv AI Papers

SEIS: Self-Evolving Inference Systems

Inference systems determine how fast and how cheaply language models can be served, so making them faster has direct practical value. However, prior work focuses mostly on optimizing certain parts such as kernels or memory within the large system. In this work, we take a holistic approach and apply agentic self-evolution to optimize the whole system end-to-end. Our SEIS (Self-Evolving Inference Systems) autonomously optimizes the entire mini-sglang engine without human intervention through iterative sessions with inherited experiences and code changes. Serving Qwen3-0.6B on H100, the resulting engine reaches 3.27X the throughput of the original mini-sglang implementation and beats SOTA engines like vLLM, TensorRT-LLM, and SGLang in the single-request workload. The correctness of the optimized inference engine by SEIS is tested in terms of numerical difference and downstream accuracy on math and long-context retrieval tasks. The code and session histories show that the speedup comes from redesigning the whole engine and that building on earlier sessions beats independent attempts. These results suggest that agentic self-evolution can optimize a complex system end-to-end. The evaluation also has to evolve with the engine, and letting agents evolve it is a natural next step.

en
arXiv AI Papers

Anticipating the Consequences of Curriculum Decisions with Large Language Models

Automatic curriculum learning can improve the effectiveness of reinforcement learning by selecting the training experiences presented to the agent over time. Predicting the consequences of such decisions can, however, be difficult. We analyze automatic curriculum learning as a sequential decision-making problem, highlighting a gap between the quantities that determine the value of curriculum decisions and the information captured by local learning signals commonly used to guide them. We then investigate whether Large Language Models (LLMs) can exploit richer information about the learning problem to better anticipate the consequences of curriculum decisions. We introduce a method that combines online learning-progress estimates with LLM-informed estimates of (i) the potential downstream benefits of learning on each task and (ii) whether direct training on a task is currently likely to produce progress. We evaluate the approach on a custom benchmark of 256 textual goals in Craftax under different curriculum objectives. We observe the strongest gains when optimizing for individual target tasks. When optimizing across the full task set, the benefits vary across learners with different mechanisms for cross-task transfer, ranging from modest improvements in learning speed to larger gains that persist through the end of training.

en