惯性聚合 高效追踪和阅读你感兴趣的博客、新闻、科技资讯
阅读原文 在惯性聚合中打开

推荐订阅源

J
Java Code Geeks
S
SegmentFault 最新的问题
V
Visual Studio Blog
人人都是产品经理
人人都是产品经理
阮一峰的网络日志
阮一峰的网络日志
腾讯CDC
Stack Overflow Blog
Stack Overflow Blog
博客园 - 【当耐特】
Recent Announcements
Recent Announcements
I
InfoQ
U
Unit 42
博客园_首页
GbyAI
GbyAI
Hugging Face - Blog
Hugging Face - Blog
罗磊的独立博客
博客园 - 叶小钗
奇客Solidot–传递最新科技情报
奇客Solidot–传递最新科技情报
D
DataBreaches.Net
aimingoo的专栏
aimingoo的专栏
月光博客
月光博客
Cyber Security Advisories - MS-ISAC
Cyber Security Advisories - MS-ISAC
博客园 - 聂微东
T
Tailwind CSS Blog
量子位

cs.SE updates on arXiv.org

VLA Foundry: A Unified Framework for Training Vision-Language-Action Models Evaluating LLM-Generated Obfuscated XSS Payloads for Machine Learning-Based Detection Do Agents Dream of Root Shells? Partial-Credit Evaluation of LLM Agents in Capture the Flag Challenges Refute-or-Promote: An Adversarial Stage-Gated Multi-Agent Review Methodology for High-Precision LLM-Assisted Defect Discovery From Particles to Perils: SVGD-Based Hazardous Scenario Generation for Autonomous Driving Systems Testing Choose Your Own Adventure: Non-Linear AI-Assisted Programming with EvoGraph Human-Machine Co-Boosted Bug Report Identification with Mutualistic Neural Active Learning LLMSniffer: Detecting LLM-Generated Code via GraphCodeBERT and Supervised Contrastive Learning Neurosymbolic Repo-level Code Localization CodeMMR: Bridging Natural Language, Code, and Image for Unified Retrieval Symbolic Guardrails for Domain-Specific Agents: Stronger Safety and Security Guarantees Without Sacrificing Utility Verification Modulo Tested Library Contracts The Semi-Executable Stack: Agentic Software Engineering and the Expanding Scope of SE Scaling Test-Time Compute for Agentic Coding AI-Assisted Requirements Engineering: An Empirical Evaluation Relative to Expert Judgment From Procedural Skills to Strategy Genes: Towards Experience-Driven Test-Time Evolution Atropos: Improving Cost-Benefit Trade-off of LLM-based Agents under Self-Consistency with Early Termination and Model Hotswap Vibe-Coding: Feedback-Based Automated Verification with no Human Code Inspection, a Feasibility Study Benchmarks for Trajectory Safety Evaluation and Diagnosis in OpenClaw and Codex: ATBench-Claw and ATBench-Codex Bounded Autonomy for Enterprise AI: Typed Action Contracts and Consumer-Side Execution AIPC: Agent-Based Automation for AI Model Deployment with Qualcomm AI Runtime Analyzing Chain of Thought (CoT) Approaches in Control Flow Code Deobfuscation Tasks Asking What Matters: Reward-Driven Clarification for Software Engineering Tasks Prompt-Driven Code Summarization: A Systematic Literature Review LinuxArena: A Control Setting for AI Agents in Live Production Software Environments LLMs taking shortcuts in test generation: A study with SAP HANA and LevelDB Large Language Models to Enhance Business Process Modeling: Past, Present, and Future Trends CollabCoder: Plan-Code Co-Evolution via Collaborative Decision-Making for Efficient Code Generation Sentiment analysis for software engineering: How far can zero-shot learning (ZSL) go? Learning from Change: Predictive Models for Incident Prevention in a Regulated IT Environment
Who Introduces and Who Fixes? Analyzing Code Quality in C...
Rafael Corsi Ferrao, Igor dos Santos Montagner, Rodolfo Azevedo · 2025-05-20 · via cs.SE updates on arXiv.org

This paper investigates code quality education by analyzing how errors are introduced and corrected in group projects within an embedded systems course. We identify who introduces errors, who fixes them, and when these actions occur. Students learn code quality rules for C and embedded systems. We address three questions: RQ1: What is the impact of group formation on code quality? RQ2: How do students interact to fix code issues? RQ3: When are issues introduced and resolved? We analyzed data from eight individual labs and two group projects involving 34 students. The course provides continuous, automated feedback on code quality. Findings show that the most active contributors often introduce the most issues. Many issues are fixed late in the project. Individual labs tend to have fewer issues due to their structured nature. Most problems are fixed by the original author, while cross-student fixes take longer, especially in shared code. Critical issues are fixed quickly, but non-critical ones may be ignored, showing a focus on functionality over quality.