Papers

Modern software – from plugin systems to self-evolving agent harnesses – increasingly requires dynamic composition, yet its formal foundations remain underdeveloped. We identify two orthogonal dimensions of the problem: temporal composability, the ability to completely revert a component's side effects upon removal, and spatial composability, the ability to declare and reactively manage inter-component dependencies. We address the two dimensions by lifting classical effect and coeffect concepts to runtime mechanisms. In particular, we formalize revertible effects, in which every context transformation carries an inverse that the runtime holds, establishing temporal composability local to one component. We formalize reactive coeffects, in which every context change is classified against a component's coeffect specification to drive its activation and deactivation, establishing spatial composability local to one component. We then unify the effect context and the coeffect context into a single context type and mediate every effect and coeffect through it, yielding a discipline we call the context paradigm; the mediation induces an observational equivalence up to which the effects of distinct components interleave without disturbing one another. Combining these mechanisms into the notion of a component, we give a calculus of dynamic composition whose metatheory carries spatiotemporal composability from a single component to a whole system of interleaved components. We implement these ideas in Cordis, a meta-framework of spatiotemporal composability that provides a core library with effect tracking and coeffect resolution, as well as a declarative component loader with configuration reconciliation and hot module replacement.

A system that authorizes an action must see enough of it to decide, and a system that attests to its decision must record enough to be audited. Both pressures push raw action parameters – recipients, payment memos, record identifiers – into an append-only ledger that cannot delete them. We show the two are separable. We classify each parameter field, not each action class, into three tiers: fields a policy may legitimately match on, which cross raw; fields that are policy-relevant but identifying, which cross only as projections such as an email domain or a templated route shape; and fields with no legitimate policy use, which never leave the workload. The central property is that the ledger's commitment is a canonical digest of the full, unminimized parameters, computed before minimization runs. The commitment is therefore independent of the tier table: reclassifying a field changes what is disclosed without invalidating a historical entry, reopening a hash, or altering what an offline verifier checks. Tier table, policy schema and wire schema are generated from one per-action declaration, so the deciding and recording parties cannot hold different rules. We then address a question the architecture forces: which party should compute each attested fact? We argue it is settled by which party could lie about it undetectably, and derive three answers within one request – the client computes the parameter digest, being the only party holding the data; it is structurally prevented from naming the definition that governed it, since that would write a false statement into a signed ledger; and it attests which tier table it applied, so divergence is detectable. We give a leakage analysis of each projection, report an incident in which a first-cut projection preserved the identifier it was written to remove, and state the residual trust the design does not eliminate.

Screen rotation is a fundamental interaction in Android applications, but it often introduces non-crashing functional failures (NCFs), such as layout inconsistencies and state loss, which are difficult to detect automatically. A key challenge is the lack of effective test oracles for checking cross-orientation state equivalence between portrait and landscape views. We propose RotDroid, a testing framework for detecting GUI rotation bugs via cross-orientation state equivalence. RotDroid generates and mutates State-Preserving action Sequences (SPS) to construct semantically equivalent GUI states across orientations. To support reliable oracle checking, we build RotBench, a dataset of paired portrait-landscape GUI states, and develop RotVL, a vision-language model fine-tuned for equivalence checking. Experiments on both synthetic and real-world datasets show that RotVL outperforms state-of-the-art models, and RotDroid detects more rotation-induced failures than existing techniques under equal budgets. In large-scale studies on open- and closed-source apps, RotDroid reports 94 previously unknown bugs, with 47 confirmed or fixed by developers, demonstrating its practical effectiveness.

Retry mechanisms are a standard component of resilient distributed systems, but their collective behavior, when every tier in a call path retries concurrently, is less well understood than the per-client guidance that produced them. This paper introduces the retry amplification factor (RAF), a metric quantifying the additional request volume that retry policies generate during partial failures. In a study of 200 open-source Python microservice projects, explicit retry logic is detected in 11.5%, and an audit of our own false negatives places true prevalence near 41%. Among the projects detected, 60.9% contain at least one configuration without backoff, and after manual verification exactly one of 113 production configurations randomizes its delay. We then evaluate these policies in simulation (n = 100 trials per strategy). Under correlated failures, a naive standard retry policy reduces the success rate from 55.4% to 41.5% relative to performing no retries at all. We catalog five recurring anti-patterns, propose Adaptive Retry Budgeting (ARB), and show that budget-constrained retries maintain success rates close to the no-retry baseline while still recovering from transient faults. These results indicate that retry behavior should be designed as a system-level property rather than configured locally at each call site.

Public cryptocurrency archives may appear usable when files exist, although factor research requires observations available and executable at each decision time. We audit public Binance BTCUSDT USD-M perpetual-futures data using event, publication, and availability times and separate proposal from deterministic auditing, evaluation, and holdout access. An initial gapless five-minute requirement for trade, mark, index, and open interest failed: the longest unrepaired intersection was 304.5729166666667 days. A disclosed revision made trade, mark, index, and realized funding the core streams and made open interest optional because its publication time was unverified. The revised mask retained 727 complete UTC days and supported a 436/145/146-day train, validation, and historical-holdout split. On 80 frozen known-rule templates, the auditor detected 40/40 violations and rejected 0/40 legal templates. Across ten null-signal paths, full auditing reduced mean false passes from 0.2910 to 0.0625. Under matched valid-candidate budgets, the audited adaptive agent tied random search and did not establish superiority. In the one-time historical holdout, all evaluated runs had positive IC but negative net Sharpe under primary costs. We therefore report a scoped negative result rather than a profitability or agent-superiority claim.

Software agents connect probabilistic model output to operations that change repositories, processes, networks, and graphical applications. We present Metis, a multi-provider runtime that converts provider streams into typed events before admitted calls reach external effects. Its execution path makes permission decisions, interference classes, terminal results, and lifecycle transitions explicit and inspectable. We evaluate these mechanisms on frozen source artifacts. Across 30 matched real-I/O pairs, four-class mediation reduced median elapsed time from 25.958 ms under forced serialization to 14.146 ms. The mean paired difference was -12.295 ms (95% bootstrap interval [-12.968, -11.694]), with mediation faster in all pairs. A ten-case fault matrix exposed duplicate-identifier and rollback limits. In a child-boundary ablation, the full gate-plus-registry condition blocked the declared unauthorized effect and hid all five escape tools. Removing both protections reversed both observations. A decision-only permission oracle matched all ten declared cases across five invocation routes. Five model conditions also completed a fixed Read-marker protocol in 3/3 trials each. These results support bounded claims about dispatch, permission routing, child authority, and provider-valid trace closure. They do not establish model competence, semantic safety, rollback, or superiority over another runtime.

Coding agents increase development velocity but also technical debt. Prior work reports only average effects across adopters, hiding wide differences between teams. We introduce RAMP (Repository AI Maturity Profile), a four-level cumulative maturity model grounded in version-controlled artifacts that teams commit to configure AI tools. RAMP runs from behavioral rules and coding standards through named agent definitions to multi-agent orchestration, with observed practice concentrated in the first three levels. Across 441 repositories the levels behave as a cumulative scale, and independent human annotation reproduces RAMP's repository-level labels on 97% of a held-out sample. Adoption is cumulative, forward-only, and set-and-forget: 73.8% of artifacts are committed once and never modified. Re-estimating an existing agent-adoption panel within each stratum, agents accelerate development regardless of maturity (28-38% more commits), but quality diverges: among agent-first repositories, where the contrast is identified, those without committed AI configuration show roughly twice the increase in cognitive complexity (+53% versus +27%) and 1.7x the increase in static-analysis warnings. Because maturity is observational, correlated engineering discipline or model capability may explain part of the gap; we present these findings as hypothesis-generating and release RAMP as a reusable instrument.

Conformance suites for quantized GEMM kernels ask whether two implementations agree within a tolerance. We measure what such a suite can detect. Injecting nine faults into a reference INT8 pipeline over 8,232 layer–fault–regime cells of Qwen3-1.7B, we find that every one of five epilogue faults – scale precision, double rounding, multiplication order, output truncation, fused ordering – moves the output by at most a single bfloat16 spacing, and by exactly one whenever it moves it at all, across 5,880 cells. A tolerance of one spacing is therefore blind to the entire class by construction: four of the five faults are detected by no check in the suite, and the fifth only under power-of-two scales. Faults that violate the accumulator's exactness preconditions, or that break operand sharing, are detected without exception, and a null fault never fires. What a tolerance-based suite of this shape establishes is therefore narrower than interchangeability: that the preconditions hold, that operands are shared, and that differences stay within one spacing. The power-of-two constraint that exposes the one detected fault is also deployable. Requantizing every weight scale to its nearest power of two makes CUTLASS and Triton agree bitwise at every linear layer (196/196 and 252/252, against 8/196 and 10/252 under the checkpoints' own scales) and yields byte-identical generated token sequences at 1.7B, 8B and 14B (8/8 prompts, against 0/8 at all three). Observed perplexity point estimates are +0.32%, -0.28% and +0.48%; the 90% intervals cover zero at the two smaller sizes but not at 14B, reaching +0.71% and +0.76%. A previously reported +157% perplexity for this intervention was an artifact of a probe that rewrote scales without requantizing the weights; separating the effects attributes 99.8% of it to the resulting weight–scale mismatch rather than to the power-of-two constraint itself.

Computer Use Agents (CUAs) are increasingly deployed to navigate mobile and desktop applications on behalf of users, yet no benchmark comprehensively evaluates whether they can safely interact with visual interfaces while handling ambiguous instructions. We introduce ADeptS-Bench, a dual-stream trustworthiness benchmark, grounded in the ADEPTS capability framework and general population user studies. The Safety stream provides paired benign/malicious tasks with threats embedded in the visual interface. The Disambiguation stream evaluates whether agents seek clarification when intent is ambiguous. Evaluating seven models reveals that no model consistently exceeds 80% task success while staying below 30% attack success; every model clicks "Checkout" on a $25K order without hesitation, and none detects that a "factory reset" button is mislabeled as "Optimize." An ablation reveals three distinct safety architectures: tool-dependent (ASR +21-23pp without refusal tool), partially tool-dependent (+10-11pp), and no mechanism (unchanged). In disambiguation, all models overestimate consequence severity, mirroring the over-refusal bias observed in safety. We release all data, evaluation code, and analysis tools upon publication.

We ask whether AI agents powered by locally deployed large language models can reliably automate expert-defined hardware design workflows in an industry-realistic tool-calling setting. In these environments, engineers issue repetitive, dependency-ordered operations—such as creating components, adding ports, and wiring connections—through specialised tools. Confidentiality constraints on component specifications and naming conventions often preclude hosted proprietary APIs, motivating the use of locally deployed models. To study this setting, we build a Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that reproduces the state and dependency logic of a proprietary hardware design tool used in embedded system development and construct a benchmark covering single-operation edits, multi-step dependency chains, invalid requests, misspelled prompts, and multi-server tool contexts. We evaluate seven open-source models comparing pipeline choices including system prompts, tool-description detail, context scope, and single-agent versus multi-agent architectures. Results show that strong models can achieve near-complete expected-call coverage on the benchmarked workflows, but reliability depends strongly on both task structure and agent configuration. Comprehensive tool descriptions consistently reduce failures, few-shot prompting can cause severe inaction for some models, cumulative context harms constrained models, and multi-agent decomposition helps weak workers or long sessions at the cost of additional calls. These findings provide practical guidance for deploying local LLM agents in stateful hardware design environments.

Large Language Model (LLM) based agents exhibit substantial run-to-run execution variance even when given identical tasks and tools – acceptable for exploratory use but unacceptable in regulated domains such as finance and compliance. We study harness engineering: wrapping an agent in a deterministic execution layer (finite-state control, forced tool selection, output validation, bounded retry, and structured planning) and measuring its effect on execution determinism and task success. Across two synthetic tasks (finance and legal) and two open-weight models (Qwen-2.5-7B-Instruct, Gemma-3-27B), a first-pass harness produces a mixed result: it significantly improves reproducibility in one of four model-task cells, significantly degrades it in two, and has no effect in the fourth. A trace-level diagnostic finds the cause: once tool sequence, state sequence, and output are already highly consistent, an unconstrained free-text planning step becomes the dominant remaining source of variance. Adding Structured Planning – validating the plan against a fixed schema before any tool is invoked – eliminates the effect entirely: three of four cells reach a Reproducibility Rate and Determinism Index of 1.000 at N=100, and task success rises to 100% in three of four cells. The gain is not free: token cost falls in every cell, but latency shows a genuine, sample-size-robust split by model – one becomes faster under the constraint, the other markedly slower. We argue harness engineering is a distinct, effective discipline for agent reliability, but its cost is model-dependent and must be measured, not assumed.

LLM agents execute tasks through multi-step trajectories that accumulate cost in tokens, latency, monetary fees, and environmental risk while producing utility only at the aggregate task level. Prior surveys address inference optimization, agent capabilities, or evaluation in isolation, leaving practitioners without principled tools to determine whether a trajectory's resource expenditure is justified by its task contribution. We address this gap by developing a trajectory-centric cost-utility alignment framework that treats resource consumption and task contribution as dual ledgers over the same execution, organized around five analytical stages: cost profiling, utility attribution, misalignment diagnosis, targeted adaptation, and evaluation. Utility attribution is central to this structure: rather than relying on aggregate outcomes, it organizes contribution methods by evidential strength, from process proxies and information dependency to counterfactual replay, supplying the causal evidence that grounds diagnosis and guides adaptation. Using this framework, we analyze recent agent systems, attribution methods, and evaluation protocols covering efficiency, reliability, and economic value, as well as five forms of misalignment spanning cognitive and context use, external interaction, recovery-loop control, resource-capability allocation, and multi-agent coordination, together with their targeted adaptations. The result is a closed analytical loop connecting the cost side of agent execution to its utility side, providing a structured basis for resource-aware agent design and deployment.

AI coding agents implement software from naturallanguage instructions, but the intent behind that work is lost when stated only in chat sessions. Spec-driven development (SDD) addresses this by having developers and agents write specifications that guide implementation, yet evidence on its use comes largely from tool vendors. We study SDD in practice through a thematic analysis of Reddit discussions, interviews with 21 practitioners, including eight tool makers, and 266 active and popular repositories in SpecMine, a corpus of 470,795 spec files from 73,030 public GitHub repositories that we release. Practitioners agreed that specs should capture intent, but many also included implementation details, used SDD selectively and mainly for new features, and reported more reliable agent behavior alongside greater planning and review costs. Our findings show that implementation detail may help agents while making specs prone to decay, that tool-specific record structures shape what people and agents see, and that participants described spec-code checks mainly when changes are completed rather than over time. We also find that individual benefits may come from clarifying intent before delegation, while team benefits may depend on SDD becoming a shared process. We derive implications for tool builders, practitioners, and researchers.

Coding agents increase implementation capacity without automatically making project intent, system structure, or acceptance evidence explicit. As implementation becomes abundant relative to engineering judgment, the scarce work shifts toward choosing useful abstractions, producing evidence, and determining which obligations govern acceptance. Existing workflows address parts of this gap through larger prompts, repository retrieval, or perchange review, but still require agents and engineers to reconstruct consequential properties. As an alternative, we present Model-Based Agentic Software Engineering (MAGE). MAGE is a framework and a theory for building trustworthy autonomy from commodity intelligence. MAGE addresses a representation problem and an authority problem: it externalizes the smallest purposeful representation needed to answer an engineering question, then gives settled obligations proportionate authority through constraints, sensors, validators, and gates. It keeps uncertain intent open and turns recurring reconstruction and judgment into durable engineering structure that later work can inherit. We developed MAGE from a longitudinal case and refined it through six independently reported industrial accounts. Across these sources, MAGE explains how externalized knowledge, bounded action, independent evaluation, and retained human authority can compose into a governed engineering environment, and proposes tests of when that environment turns commodity intelligence into durable engineering progress.

Evaluating the ability of large language models (LLMs) to discover software bugs is increasingly important. Existing benchmarks typically evaluate this capability by asking the model to generate a proof-of-concept input that triggers a predefined target vulnerability. However, this setup may overlook valid crashes discovered by the model when they do not match the predefined target. As a result, the evaluation may not reflect the model's real capability. We present FuzzingBrain-Bench, a benchmark for assessing AI models' ability to discover bugs in open-source software. Models are given an open-source project and a sanitizer-instrumented harness in a self-contained Docker image. Their goal is to generate inputs that trigger as many distinct crashes as possible through the harness. A model's performance on each challenge is scored based on the number of distinct crash signatures it produces, capped at a predefined maximum and weighted by a difficulty coefficient. FuzzingBrain-Bench V1 consists of 77 challenges drawn from 43 open-source projects, with 36 C, 32 C++, and 9 Java/JVM challenges. We evaluate Claude Haiku 4.5, Claude Sonnet 4.6, and Claude Opus 4.8 on the full benchmark. Claude Opus 4.8 performs best, triggering crashes in 60 of 77 challenges and achieving a score of 196 out of 579. None of the three models triggers a crash in 13 challenges. The FuzzingBrain-Bench corpus and harnesses are publicly available at https://github.com/fuzzingbrain/FuzzingBrain-Bench.

Systematic reviews, scoping reviews, mapping studies, and related evidence syntheses are increasingly difficult to conduct with fully manual workflows as search volumes, update cycles, and synthesis requirements continue to expand. At the same time, artificial intelligence, machine learning, and large language models are rapidly entering review practice across query formulation, screening, extraction, categorization, appraisal support, and reporting. Yet the empirical evidence remains uneven, task-dependent, and insufficient to justify unconstrained automation. Existing standards such as PRISMA 2020, PRISMA-S, PRISMA-ScR, PRISMA-P, PRESS, and SWiM remain essential, but none provides an end-to-end operational standard for when AI use is methodologically appropriate, how it should be validated, which review decisions must remain human-led, and how AI involvement should be reported so that readers can audit it. This paper proposes ARISMA, an AI Reporting and Integration standard for Systematic Methods and Analysis. ARISMA treats AI as an inspected, benchmarked, logged, and reversible assistant rather than an autonomous reviewer. It is built around one governing principle: every consequential scientific decision must remain human-interpretable, human-auditable, and human-accountable. The paper contributes a lifecycle taxonomy, process guidance, stepwise recommendations across the review pipeline, a governance and provenance model, a tool-support framework, an AI-integrated reporting checklist, and a validation matrix. It also addresses legal, privacy, infrastructure, and sustainability considerations. The framework was iteratively refined through structured expert consultation. The result is a practical and auditable guideline for responsible AI-assisted evidence synthesis.

Scientific agents increasingly analyze data, execute code, and produce research artifacts, yet most benchmarks emphasize final answers, isolated programs, or a single domain. We introduce FrontierChallenge, a cross-domain benchmark comprising 300 end-to-end scientific workflows. In this paper, we release and evaluate 97 of these tasks, spanning quantum chemistry, molecular dynamics, materials characterization, analytical chemistry, life science, and electrochemistry/environment. Each task provides fixed inputs and specifies a bundle of required scientific deliverables. We evaluate twelve frontier models with three agent scaffolds. Pass Rate measures the fraction of tasks satisfying the full-completion criterion, while Avg. Score captures partial progress. Each of the best-performing configurations completed only 20 of the 97 released tasks, yielding a Pass Rate of 20.6%. Partial progress translated especially poorly into complete delivery in analytical chemistry and electrochemistry/environment: Avg. Scores reached 87.6 and 94.9, but the highest Pass Rates were only 4% and 0%. Among non-passing Claude Code trajectories, 75.5% still ended with language claiming completion. Complementary HDS6 process scores correlate strongly with task outcomes, supporting FrontierChallenge as a benchmark of Heavy Duty Solver capabilities. These findings show that neither high partial scores nor confident claims of completion reliably indicate that a scientific task has been fully delivered, highlighting the need to evaluate end-to-end workflow execution and the completeness of scientific deliverables together.

AI coding assistants generate Infrastructure as Code, yet no work has examined whether this code meets security requirements. This matters because security smells in infrastructure code propagate to deployed systems, producing infrastructure that is insecure and untrustworthy. We evaluate 16 AI models generating Ansible roles for Apache Tomcat v10 and MongoDB v7, analysing 278 Ansible roles against CIS benchmarks. Without security guidance, all 16 AI models produced code containing security smells, resulting in vulnerable infrastructure that fails compliance verification and underperforms code written by human developers. We introduce an approach integrating Ansible best practices and CIS benchmarks into prompts through an extended CO-STAR framework, enabling security smell prevention during synthesis rather than detection after deployment. When this approach is applied, 4 out of 16 models generate compliant code, with the leading model achieving 95%-100% CIS compliance, a fourfold improvement over humans at 23%-43%, with overall code quality improving by 19%-49%. The remaining 12 models fail not because they cannot generate code but because they cannot follow instructions with multiple constraints. For capable models, the approach requires no retraining and can be adopted through system prompts.

LLM agents routinely include privacy-sensitive data (PSD) in tool call arguments beyond what the invoked tools require, crossing trust boundaries to third-party services on every invocation. A controlled measurement on three production LLMs (GPT-4o, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Llama-3.3-70B) shows that 81–88% of tool calls include unnecessary PSD under default prompts; explicit privacy instructions still leave 36–76% over-sharing. Existing defenses gate calls (allow/block) or label flows (information-flow control) but cannot rewrite argument values, and PII detection tools miss implicit PSD like “Memorial Sloan Kettering” (a hospital name that implies a diagnosis). We present \system{}, a middleware that intercepts tool calls and rewrites their arguments to the minimum data necessary for tool functionality, combining schema-aware necessity analysis with four operations: removal, generalization, substitution, and truncation. Live validation on 307 tool calls across the three LLMs above reduces privacy cost by 81.2–92.0% at 100% argument-level task validity (TOST equivalence $p{<}0.001$ at $\Delta{=}1.0$); on 25 unannotated Model Context Protocol (MCP) schemas, by 79.0% with no minimum\_necessary metadata. An optional LLM content-necessity layer strips task-irrelevant PSD from otherwise-necessary free-text fields, raising live-LLM reduction to 85.1–95.6% and author-schema reduction from 71.1% to 90.9%. Median latency is 1.77\,ms.

Decompilation has become a foundational technique in software engineering and security analysis, and it is now advancing through the integration of modern machine learning (ML) approaches. This article presents a systematic review of decompilation studies published over the past decades and develops a comprehensive taxonomy of methodologies employed in contemporary research. We further examine trends in evaluation metrics, tools, and benchmarks used to assess state-of-the-art approaches. Our review reveals key challenges, such as the lack of reliable ground truth and the absence of standardized benchmarks, which hinder rigorous comparison. Finally, we outline future research directions.

Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly generate code from natural-language prompts, making prompt engineering a key mechanism for shaping the security of generated software. Structured and security-oriented prompts are widely used to encourage safer code, yet their effects extend beyond whether detected weaknesses are simply present or absent. Using 424 security-sensitive Python tasks, we generate solutions with GPT-4o and LLaMA 3.1-8B under five prompt variants that progressively add structural and security guidance, and evaluate them with Bandit and CodeQL along two axes: generation compliance and security weakness prevalence, severity, and CWE distributions. Structured prompting substantially reduces refusals (e.g., GPT-4o invalid outputs drop from 338 of 424 to 37-52), enabling large-scale analysis, but security-oriented refinements do not consistently reduce overall weakness prevalence. For GPT-4o, stronger prompts primarily redistribute risk: high-severity findings fall (20.8% to 13.6%) while low-severity findings rise (32% to 43.5%); LLaMA shows weaker, less consistent shifts. We also observe security-driven semantic drift, where stricter prompts silently remove or rewrite explicitly requested unsafe constructs. Overall, prompt structure improves compliance but is an unreliable substitute for robust security controls in LLM-assisted development.

Model cards are structured documents that summarize key information about machine learning models to improve transparency, usability, and accountability. However, they often lack a consistent structure, and many models provide no model cards, making comparison and interpretation difficult. This paper presents two contributions. First, we propose MCTidy, an LLM-based approach that reorganizes existing model cards into a standardized template to improve clarity and comparability. Second, we introduce MCGenie, an LLM-based system that generates model cards directly from model repository data. We apply MCTidy to 48 Hugging Face model cards and evaluate information retention, section alignment, hallucination, and stability. Our findings show high information retention with minimal textual loss, accurate section assignment, rare hallucinations primarily in descriptive sections, and strong stability across runs. We assess MCGenie by generating model cards for the same 48 models and assessing semantic similarity, factual correctness, and sensitivity to input resources. The generated model cards achieved high semantic similarity (mean around 0.9); over half were fully correct, and most remaining errors were minor. Generation quality depended strongly on the availability of supporting resources, particularly associated papers. Overall, our findings demonstrate the potential of LLM-based methods to enable scalable, standardized model card documentation.

We present StarHarness, a framework for evolving environment-specific agent harnesses while keeping model weights fixed. The evolved harness can include prompt and task framing, tool interfaces, skills, MCP-backed providers, subagent structure, and agent-loop configuration. StarHarness constructs a compact evolution pool by stratifying tasks according to baseline failure behavior, separates proposer-visible search tasks from proposer-hidden selection tasks, and reserves held-out tasks for evaluating generalization. Across ITBench SRE, EnterpriseOps-Gym ITSM, and AutomationBench Finance, harness evolution improves full-benchmark performance by 20-35 percentage points over the default harness after 4-12 accepted changes per environment. These gains persist on tasks excluded from evolution and transfer without re-evolution across GPT and Qwen model families. Trace analysis links the improvements to interface repairs, environment conventions, and operational knowledge that compresses search, with fewer false-positive diagnoses and shorter trajectories in several settings. StarHarness therefore offers a practical way to reduce persistent model-environment mismatch in tool-rich enterprise tasks.

Requirements elicitation is essential for developing interactive software systems, as it helps ensure that the resulting product meets stakeholder needs. Since elicitation typically relies on natural language (NL), misunderstandings can arise from its inherent ambiguity. Formal specifications can reduce ambiguity but require technical expertise. GUI prototyping therefore provides a valuable alternative by turning requirements into tangible visual artifacts that support communication, elicitation, and validation. However, creating high-fidelity prototypes remains time-consuming and costly. Similarly, requirements verification, which ensures that implementations conform to specified requirements, is still largely manual, while existing automated approaches are often limited to static, rule-based techniques. This work addresses two challenges: (C1) reducing the effort required to transform NL requirements into GUI prototypes, and (C2) reducing the effort required for requirements verification in GUI applications and prototypes. For C1, we introduce novel NL-based GUI retrieval and reranking methods, new benchmarks, and techniques for efficiently adapting LLMs to GUI generation, including proprietary GUI representations. Their effectiveness is demonstrated on a large benchmark with human annotations. For C2, we propose LLM-based methods for verifying semantically complex NL requirements on static GUI prototypes and introduce a multimodal LLM-based agent for verifying complex functional and non-functional requirements in dynamic GUI applications through automatically generated and evaluated interaction trajectories. Overall, the proposed methods substantially reduce manual effort in GUI prototyping and requirements verification.

Claims that generative AI will soon write all of the code have led to predictions that programming is nearing its end. In this vision paper, we argue against this assumption that broader access to code generation necessarily democratizes software development, i.e., everyone can code but we have to distinguish between access and control: by access, we mean the ability of more people, including non-experts and less-experienced developers, to generate code-like artifacts with AI; by control, we mean the capacity to inspect, evaluate, integrate, maintain, and govern those artifacts as dependable software. While AI may broaden access to code production, control may become more concentrated among those who own or understand the code, software practices, infrastructure, evaluation practices, and deployment pipelines. Grounded in an expert panel, our vision paper argues that AI does not eliminate software engineering expertise but shifts where that expertise becomes most critical. The locus of software engineering expertise is shifting toward intent specification: orchestrating and governing AI behavior, evaluating software behavior, and integrating software systems. We conclude this paper by identifying research opportunities for education, tools, and policy that can help the software engineering community respond to the AI era with greater agency, accountability, and adaptability.

Process mining is widely used to diagnose processes and identify performance and compliance issues. Specifically, Predictive Process Monitoring (PPM) techniques use AI models to predict outcomes of ongoing process instances. While these models can achieve high predictive performance, their black-box nature makes it difficult to understand the underlying reasons behind their output predictions. In this paper, we propose a novel approach for generating local (case-level) explanations of process monitor predictions based on the framework of actual causality. We define a causal model tailored to processes that captures temporal dependencies between events in a trace, thus allowing us to reason about causal influence of events on the predicted outcome. Our method uses this model implicitly to compute causes and quantify the importance of different events with respect to the predicted outcome. We present a practical, model-agnostic algorithm that approximates event responsibility given the process structure reflected in the causal model. We evaluate our approach on a range of datasets derived from real-life event logs from a standard PPM benchmark. Each dataset contains up to 130,000 traces, with trace lengths of up to 1,800 events and up to 400 distinct event types. We compare our approach with state-of-the-art local explanation methods. The results demonstrate that our approach produces more stable and concise explanations while maintaining competitive efficiency.

This paper introduces an environment for constructing literate programs in concert with language-aware machine agents. This environment includes a grammar for executable program essays, a parser that treats names as first-class objects, an internal name-graph which relates prose, names and executable artifacts, and a binding mechanism for existing languages and testing toolsets. This supports co-location of code with its most relevant natural language and structured data context, making better use of Large Language Model (LLM) context windows. It also provides LLM coding agents with a toolset more analogous to the symbol-aware search and usage information available in human programmer-facing Integrated Development Environments (IDEs). We describe a working implementation with bindings to three established programming languages, and several example programs.

Prompt engineering and prompt engineering techniques (PETs) have become an integral part of software engineering for AI systems. However, new LLMs are released frequently and it remains unclear how the effectiveness of prompt engineering techniques changes across successive generations of Large Language Models (LLMs). To this end, we conduct a partial replication of the study by Khojah et al. (2025). We evaluate five techniques - Zero-Shot, Few-Shot, Chain-of-Thought (CoT), Contrastive Chain-of-Thought (CCoT), and an adapted version of Program-of-Thought (PoT) - on six instruction-tuned models grouped into three version pairs: GPT-3.5-Turbo/GPT-4o, Qwen2 7B Instruct/Qwen2.5 7B Instruct, and Mistral-7B-Instruct/Mistral-Large. We use a cleaned subset of the CodePromptEval dataset with 218 context-rich Python functions and 19,620 total generations assessed via pass@k-based functional correctness to evaluate model pairs on function-level code generation tasks. We show that prompt engineering "ages" in a model-family-specific way: Newer GPT models exhibit diminishing or even negative marginal gains from structured prompting, suggesting that instruction-following and reasoning scaffolds are increasingly internalized, whereas Qwen models continue to benefit substantially from Few-Shot and CCoT. Mistral models show mixed behavior with persistent gains from CCoT but attenuated benefits from CoT and PoT. Our results imply that effective prompting strategies must be adapted per model family and generation rather than transferred unchanged. This motivates future work on adaptive, model-aware prompting and broader, multi-dimensional code quality evaluation.

This paper investigates the association between team dysfunctions and performance in the context of an engineering Capstone program. Capstone programs are considered fundamental in assessing the readiness of engineering and computer science students for professional practice, evaluating not only technical knowledge but also essential competencies such as teamwork, communication, design, and organization. Despite the recognized importance of team dynamics in such settings, their relationship with project performance remains insufficiently understood. Using survey data collected from student teams, we quantify team dynamics based on Lencioni's model of the five dysfunctions of a team, with all measures reverse-coded so that higher values indicate more positive team behaviors (i.e., lower dysfunction). The results indicate a weak-to-moderate relationship between team dynamics and performance. Each dysfunction score was computed as the sum of three corresponding survey items. All items were coded such that higher values indicate more positive team behaviors (i.e., lower dysfunction). Therefore, each score ranges from 3 to 9, where higher values reflect healthier team dynamics. This study analyzes empirical evidence on team effectiveness in project-based learning environments and offers insights for the design of Capstone programs. In particular, it highlights the importance of goal alignment and focus on deliverables while emphasizing that team dynamics should be considered alongside technical and contextual factors.

Tool-augmented language models are bounded by the APIs humans bothered to write; existing tool-creation systems patch this by prompting a frozen LLM at inference time, leaving the model that writes a tool decoupled from the one that uses it, with no signal that the schemas it produces are schemas it can invoke. We propose SMITH (Schema-grounded Multi-task Iterative Tool Honing), a reinforcement learning framework that jointly trains tool creation and tool use inside a single policy. Each rollout is either a build task (write a tool from a few examples) or a use task (invoke a pooled tool on a held-out question). Three separate reward axes catch schema, code, and outcome failures independently, so each failure mode contributes its own gradient. A 4B Qwen3 trained with SMITH on 13 procedural reasoning tasks with exact verifiers reaches 79.8 macro-average accuracy on held-out tasks, the best across all evaluated methods and ahead of an untrained 30B-A3B tool-writer. It also reaches 40.4 on TabMWP-Hard and 42.6 on out-of-domain GQA (+7.6 over the best same-backbone inference-time baseline), without any visual or tabular training data. Tools written by our 4B models also lifted the performance of LFM-2.5-350M and Qwen3-30B-A3B under same reasoning tasks.