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

阮一峰的网络日志
阮一峰的网络日志
博客园_首页
H
Help Net Security
博客园 - Franky
V
Visual Studio Blog
Jina AI
Jina AI
奇客Solidot–传递最新科技情报
奇客Solidot–传递最新科技情报
钛媒体:引领未来商业与生活新知
钛媒体:引领未来商业与生活新知
V
V2EX
宝玉的分享
宝玉的分享
酷 壳 – CoolShell
酷 壳 – CoolShell
J
Java Code Geeks
L
LangChain Blog
腾讯CDC
Engineering at Meta
Engineering at Meta
D
DataBreaches.Net
爱范儿
爱范儿
Google DeepMind News
Google DeepMind News
C
Check Point Blog
博客园 - 聂微东
罗磊的独立博客
量子位
M
MIT News - Artificial intelligence
F
Fortinet All Blogs

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
Developers Perception of Peer Code Review in Research Sof...
Nasir U. Eisty, Jeffrey C. Carver · 2021-09-23 · via cs.SE updates on arXiv.org

Background: Research software is software developed by and/or used by researchers, across a wide variety of domains, to perform their research. Because of the complexity of research software, developers cannot conduct exhaustive testing. As a result, researchers have lower confidence in the correctness of the output of the software. Peer code review, a standard software engineering practice, has helped address this problem in other types of software. Aims: Peer code review is less prevalent in research software than it is in other types of software. In addition, the literature does not contain any studies about the use of peer code review in research software. Therefore, through analyzing developers perceptions, the goal of this work is to understand the current practice of peer code review in the development of research software, identify challenges and barriers associated with peer code review in research software, and present approaches to improve the peer code review in research software. Method: We conducted interviews and a community survey of research software developers to collect information about their current peer code review practices, difficulties they face, and how they address those difficulties. Results: We received 84 unique responses from the interviews and surveys. The results show that while research software teams review a large amount of their code, they lack formal process, proper organization, and adequate people to perform the reviews. Conclusions: Use of peer code review is promising for improving the quality of research software and thereby improving the trustworthiness of the underlying research results. In addition, by using peer code review, research software developers produce more readable and understandable code, which will be easier to maintain.