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

人人都是产品经理
人人都是产品经理
Google DeepMind News
Google DeepMind News
博客园 - 【当耐特】
量子位
博客园 - 司徒正美
爱范儿
爱范儿
Hugging Face - Blog
Hugging Face - Blog
博客园 - 聂微东
Jina AI
Jina AI
J
Java Code Geeks
腾讯CDC
大猫的无限游戏
大猫的无限游戏
V
Visual Studio Blog
I
InfoQ
D
Docker
Recent Announcements
Recent Announcements
MongoDB | Blog
MongoDB | Blog
博客园 - Franky
宝玉的分享
宝玉的分享
G
Google Developers Blog
GbyAI
GbyAI
Y
Y Combinator Blog
有赞技术团队
有赞技术团队
H
Help Net Security

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
MPI Errors Detection using GNN Embedding and Vector Embed...
Jad El Karchi, Hanze Chen, Ali TehraniJamsaz, Ali Jannesari, Mih · 2024-03-05 · via cs.SE updates on arXiv.org

Identifying errors in parallel MPI programs is a challenging task. Despite the growing number of verification tools, debugging parallel programs remains a significant challenge. This paper is the first to utilize embedding and deep learning graph neural networks (GNNs) to tackle the issue of identifying bugs in MPI programs. Specifically, we have designed and developed two models that can determine, from a code's LLVM Intermediate Representation (IR), whether the code is correct or contains a known MPI error. We tested our models using two dedicated MPI benchmark suites for verification: MBI and MPI-CorrBench. By training and validating our models on the same benchmark suite, we achieved a prediction accuracy of 92% in detecting error types. Additionally, we trained and evaluated our models on distinct benchmark suites (e.g., transitioning from MBI to MPI-CorrBench) and achieved a promising accuracy of over 80%. Finally, we investigated the interaction between different MPI errors and quantified our models' generalization capabilities over new unseen errors. This involved removing error types during training and assessing whether our models could still predict them. The detection accuracy of removed errors varies significantly between 20% to 80%, indicating connected error patterns.