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

Martin Fowler
Martin Fowler
WordPress大学
WordPress大学
S
SegmentFault 最新的问题
罗磊的独立博客
Apple Machine Learning Research
Apple Machine Learning Research
The Cloudflare Blog
L
LangChain Blog
博客园 - 司徒正美
G
Google Developers Blog
博客园 - 【当耐特】
GbyAI
GbyAI
月光博客
月光博客
人人都是产品经理
人人都是产品经理
D
DataBreaches.Net
大猫的无限游戏
大猫的无限游戏
A
About on SuperTechFans
Microsoft Azure Blog
Microsoft Azure Blog
V
Visual Studio Blog
D
Docker
MongoDB | Blog
MongoDB | Blog
Vercel News
Vercel News
Stack Overflow Blog
Stack Overflow Blog
Jina AI
Jina AI
博客园 - 聂微东

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
HEDP: A Method for Early Forecasting Software Defects bas...
Fuqun Huang, Lorenzo Strigini · 2021-10-13 · via cs.SE updates on arXiv.org

As the primary cause of software defects, human error is the key to understanding, and perhaps to predicting and avoiding them. Little research has been done to predict defects on the basis of the cognitive errors that cause them. This paper proposes an approach to predicting software defects through knowledge about the cognitive mechanisms of human errors. Our theory is that the main process behind a software defect is that an error-prone scenario triggers human error modes, which psychologists have observed to recur across diverse activities. Software defects can then be predicted by identifying such scenarios, guided by this knowledge of typical error modes. The proposed idea emphasizes predicting the exact location and form of a possible defect. We conducted two case studies to demonstrate and validate this approach, with 55 programmers in a programming competition and 5 analysts serving as the users of the approach. We found it impressive that the approach was able to predict, at the requirement phase, the exact locations and forms of 7 out of the 22 (31.8%) specific types of defects that were found in the code. The defects predicted tended to be common defects: their occurrences constituted 75.7% of the total number of defects in the 55 developed programs; each of them was introduced by at least two persons. The fraction of the defects introduced by a programmer that were predicted was on average (over all programmers) 75%. Furthermore, these predicted defects were highly persistent through the debugging process. If the prediction had been used to successfully prevent these defects, this could have saved 46.2% of the debugging iterations. This excellent capability of forecasting the exact locations and forms of possible defects at the early phases of software development recommends the approach for substantial benefits to defect prevention and early detection.