Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 1 minor 55 references

Archer: Towards Agentic Review for Compiler Optimizations

T0 review · 1 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-07-03 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Archer finds semantic bugs in 21% of open LLVM optimization pull requests and 11% of closed ones.

desk verdict Archer's 21% and 11% bug rates on LLVM PRs rest on an agentic detector whose accuracy is not shown, so the headline numbers cannot be taken as evidence yet. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.01808 v1 pith:NOZXRWWV submitted 2026-07-02 cs.SE

Yunbo Ni , Shaohua Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SE
keywords agenticcodereviewcompileroptimizationsLLVMsemanticbugspullrequestmiscompilationautomatedvalidationguard
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper introduces Archer as an automated agentic code review tool designed specifically for compiler optimizations in LLVM. It guides the review process from both ends by using obligations to direct the agent's analysis and a deterministic validation guard that admits only findings supported by executable evidence. When run on 70 open and 328 closed recent LLVM PRs, Archer reports that 21% of the open PRs and 11% of the closed PRs introduce semantic bugs such as miscompilations. The authors conclude that this reveals a critical shortfall in expert review capacity for large compiler projects and positions Archer as a practical additional reviewer.

What carries the argument

Archer, the agentic review system that applies obligations to guide analysis and a deterministic validation guard to accept only executable-evidence-backed findings.

What would settle it

Independent manual verification or re-testing of the specific PRs flagged by Archer to confirm whether they actually introduce miscompilations or other semantic changes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Archer constrains agentic review with obligations and a deterministic validation guard that requires executable evidence, and its application to recent LLVM PRs shows that 21% of open PRs and 11% of closed PRs introduce semantic bugs such as miscompilations.

Load-bearing premise

The validation guard and agentic analysis correctly identify actual semantic bugs without substantial false positives or missed cases.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A substantial fraction of compiler optimization changes may enter the codebase with undetected semantic errors.
  • Expert review capacity in large compiler projects is insufficient to catch all such issues before integration.
  • An automated tool using obligations and executable validation can serve as a scalable additional reviewer for optimization PRs.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same constrained agentic approach might be adapted to review changes in other large, correctness-critical codebases such as operating system kernels.
  • The reported bug rates suggest that existing test suites and continuous integration for LLVM may leave certain semantic properties under-checked.
  • If the validation guard can be made more general, Archer-style review could shorten the time between patch submission and safe merge while reducing bug escape.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper presents Archer, the first automated agentic code review tool for compiler optimizations in LLVM. It constrains the agentic process using obligations to guide analysis and a deterministic validation guard to admit only findings backed by executable evidence. Evaluation on 70 open PRs and 328 closed PRs from the last two months finds that 21% of open PRs and 11% of closed PRs introduce semantic bugs such as miscompilations.

Significance. If the empirical claims are substantiated with transparent validation, the work would be significant for highlighting the limited capacity for critical review in large compiler projects and demonstrating a practical agentic approach that combines obligations with deterministic guards to reduce false positives in complex domains. The scale of the evaluation (398 PRs) and the focus on real LLVM changes provide a concrete testbed for such tools.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and Evaluation] Abstract and Evaluation section: the central claims that Archer discovers 21% of open PRs and 11% of closed PRs are buggy rest on the assertion that the deterministic validation guard 'admits only findings backed by executable evidence,' yet the manuscript supplies no description of the guard's decision procedure, no false-positive audit, no manual validation of the 70+328 cases, and no concrete example of any reported bug together with its executable evidence. This directly undermines the headline percentages.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states the PRs are 'from the last two months' but does not give the exact date range or the selection criteria used to obtain the 398 PRs.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on the transparency of our evaluation. We address the major comment below and will revise the manuscript to strengthen the substantiation of our empirical claims.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and Evaluation] Abstract and Evaluation section: the central claims that Archer discovers 21% of open PRs and 11% of closed PRs are buggy rest on the assertion that the deterministic validation guard 'admits only findings backed by executable evidence,' yet the manuscript supplies no description of the guard's decision procedure, no false-positive audit, no manual validation of the 70+328 cases, and no concrete example of any reported bug together with its executable evidence. This directly undermines the headline percentages.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript would benefit from expanded detail on the deterministic validation guard to better support the reported percentages. In the revised version, we will add a precise description of the guard's decision procedure, including the criteria and mechanisms it uses to verify that each finding is backed by executable evidence. We will also include at least one concrete example of a reported bug, presenting the relevant PR change, the agent's analysis, and the specific executable evidence (e.g., test case or execution result) that caused the guard to admit the finding. Additionally, we will report a manual false-positive audit performed on a random sample of the admitted findings from both the open and closed PR sets. While a complete manual validation of all 398 PRs exceeds the practical scope of this work, the deterministic, evidence-based design of the guard provides the primary substantiation for the results; the added sample audit and example will further address concerns about the headline percentages. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: empirical rates from external PR evaluation

full rationale

The paper reports observed bug rates (21% open, 11% closed PRs) from applying Archer to a fixed set of real LLVM PRs. No equations, fitted parameters, predictions, or derivations appear. The central claim is an empirical measurement on external data rather than a self-referential reduction. No self-citation chains or ansatzes are invoked as load-bearing. This matches the default expectation of a non-circular empirical study.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 0 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review supplies no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; full text would be required to populate the ledger.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Archer: Towards Agentic Review for Compiler Optimizations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NOZXRWWV

@misc{pith2026260701808,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Archer: Towards Agentic Review for Compiler Optimizations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NOZXRWWV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.01808}
}
read the original abstract

Modern compilers are frequently updated, but expert review capacity is highly limited, leading to delayed integration and, in some cases, subtle semantic bugs entering the compiler codebase. Automating the code review process with modern general code review agents may be feasible, but it faces critical challenges due to compiler complexity. In this paper, we use LLVM as our target compiler and present Archer, the first automated agentic code review tool for compiler optimizations. Archer constrains the agentic review process from both ends by using obligations to guide analysis and a deterministic validation guard to admit only findings backed by executable evidence. We evaluated Archer on 70 open PRs and 328 closed PRs in LLVM from the last two months. The review results are shocking and concerning: Archer discovers that 21% of open PRs and 11% of closed PRs are buggy, i.e, introducing semantic bugs such as miscompilations in LLVM. Our findings expose a critical gap in the capacity for critical review in large compiler projects and demonstrate the practical value of Archer as an additional reviewer.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.01808 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example of how Archer conducts automated review on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Design of high-level workflow for Archer. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Before review, Archer constructs pass-level obli [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example of semantic rationale in Archer’s strategy. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Example of how Archer automatically constructs pass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distributions of real-world PRs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distributions of tool calls. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Found Cases (#) Gemini-3.1-Pro DeepSeek-V3.2 Qwen3.5-Plus base wo all rag [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Bug overlap across Archer with different models. 100000 125000 Base RAG All 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 Knowledge Length (chars) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The rewrite iv+x==1 → iv==1-x invalidates samesign. When x=1 and iv=-1, the original compare is samesign(0, 1) (valid), but the transformed one is samesign(-1, 0) (poison). 1 are non-negative, allowing the loop to continue normally after evaluating to false. • Transfo…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Contributors to llvm/llvm-project,

    LLVM, “Contributors to llvm/llvm-project,” 2026, accessed: 2026- 02-18. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/graphs/ contributors

    work page 2026

  2. [2]

    Contributors to llvm/llvm-project,

    ——, “Contributors to llvm/llvm-project,” 2026, accessed: 2026- 03-11. [Online]. Available: https://insights.linuxfoundation.org/project/ llvm-llvm-project

    work page 2026

  3. [3]

    Llvm: The bad parts,

    N. Popov, “Llvm: The bad parts,” 2026, accessed: 2026-02-18. [Online]. Available: https://www.npopov.com/2026/01/11/LLVM-The-bad-parts. html

    work page 2026

  4. [4]

    Facilitating vulnerability assessment through poc migration,

    X. Zhu and M. Böhme, “Regression greybox fuzzing,” inProceedings of the 2021 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, ser. CCS ’21, 2021, p. 2169–2182. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3460120.3484596

    work page doi:10.1145/3460120.3484596 2021

  5. [5]

    A survey of compiler testing,

    J. Chen, J. Patra, M. Pradel, Y . Xiong, H. Zhang, D. Hao, and L. Zhang, “A survey of compiler testing,”ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 53, no. 1, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3363562

    work page doi:10.1145/3363562 2020

  6. [6]

    Fuzzing: A survey for roadmap,

    X. Zhu, S. Wen, S. Camtepe, and Y . Xiang, “Fuzzing: A survey for roadmap,”ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 54, no. 11s, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3512345

    work page doi:10.1145/3512345 2022

  7. [7]

    Automated code review in practice,

    U. Cihan, V . Haratian, A. ˙Içöz, M. K. Gül, Ö. Devran, E. F. Bayendur, B. M. Uçar, and E. Tüzün, “Automated code review in practice,” in2025 IEEE/ACM 47th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice (ICSE-SEIP), 2025, pp. 425–436

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Codex | ai assistant work and code,

    OpenAI, “Codex | ai assistant work and code,” 2026, accessed: 2026-06-25. [Online]. Available: https://chatgpt.com/codex

    work page 2026

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Githhub copilot - your ai pair programmer,

    GitHub, “Githhub copilot - your ai pair programmer,” 2026, accessed: 2026-06-25. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/features/copilot

    2026

  2. [10]

    Ai code reviews | coderabbit,

    C. Inc, “Ai code reviews | coderabbit,” 2026, accessed: 2026-03-26. [Online]. Available: https://www.coderabbit.ai

    2026

  3. [11]

    Laura: Enhanc- ing code review generation with context-enriched retrieval-augmented llm,

    Y . Zhang, Y . Zhang, Z. Sun, Y . Jiang, and H. Liu, “Laura: Enhanc- ing code review generation with context-enriched retrieval-augmented llm,” in2025 40th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), 2025, pp. 2983–2995

    2025

  4. [12]

    Alive2: bounded translation validation for llvm,

    N. P. Lopes, J. Lee, C.-K. Hur, Z. Liu, and J. Regehr, “Alive2: bounded translation validation for llvm,” inProceedings of the 42nd ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, ser. PLDI 2021, 2021, p. 65–79. [Online]. Available: http...

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    Bitsai-cr: Automated code review via llm in practice,

    T. Sun, J. Xu, Y . Li, Z. Yan, G. Zhang, L. Xie, L. Geng, Z. Wang, Y . Chen, Q. Lin, W. Duan, K. Sui, and Y . Zhu, “Bitsai-cr: Automated code review via llm in practice,” inProceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on the Foundations of Software Engineering, ser. FS...

    2025 doi

  6. [14]

    Language models don’t always say what they think: unfaithful explanations in chain-of- thought prompting,

    M. Turpin, J. Michael, E. Perez, and S. R. Bowman, “Language models don’t always say what they think: unfaithful explanations in chain-of- thought prompting,” inProceedings of the 37th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, ser. NIPS ’23, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Are self-explanations from large language models faithful?

    A. Madsen, S. Chandar, and S. Reddy, “Are self-explanations from large language models faithful?” inFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2024, pp. 295–337. [Online]. Available: https://aclanthology. org...

    2024

  8. [16]

    Instcombine contributor guide,

    LLVM, “Instcombine contributor guide,” 2026, ac- cessed: 2026-03-26. [Online]. Available: https://llvm.org/docs/ InstCombineContributorGuide.html#proofs

    2026

  9. [17]

    Llvm ai tool use policy,

    ——, “Llvm ai tool use policy,” 2026, accessed: 2026-03-23. [Online]. Available: https://llvm.org/docs/AIToolPolicy.html

    2026

  10. [18]

    Swe-agent: agent-computer interfaces enable automated soft- ware engineering,

    J. Yang, C. E. Jimenez, A. Wettig, K. Lieret, S. Yao, K. Narasimhan, and O. Press, “Swe-agent: agent-computer interfaces enable automated soft- ware engineering,” inProceedings of the 38th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, ser. NIPS ’24, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Autoreview: An llm-based multi-agent system for security issue-oriented code review,

    Y . Chen, “Autoreview: An llm-based multi-agent system for security issue-oriented code review,” inProceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on the Foundations of Software Engineering, ser. FSE Companion ’25, 2025, p. 1022–1024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/...

    2025 doi

  12. [20]

    Rethinking code review workflows with llm assis- tance: An empirical study,

    F. S. Aðalsteinsson, B. B. Magnússon, M. Milicevic, A. N. Davidsson, and C.-H. Cheng, “Rethinking code review workflows with llm assis- tance: An empirical study,” in2025 ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM), 2025, pp. 488–497

    2025

  13. [21]

    Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks,

    P. Lewis, E. Perez, A. Piktus, F. Petroni, V . Karpukhin, N. Goyal, H. Küttler, M. Lewis, W.-t. Yih, T. Rocktäschel, S. Riedel, and D. Kiela, “Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks,” in Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Neural Infor...

    2020

  14. [22]

    Training large language models to comprehend llvm ir via feedback-driven optimization,

    Y . Zhang and K. Leach, “Training large language models to comprehend llvm ir via feedback-driven optimization,” inProceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on the Foundations of Software Engineering, ser. FSE Companion ’25, 2025, p. 1477–1478. [Online]. Available: ...

    2025 doi

  15. [23]

    Llvm language reference manual,

    LLVM, “Llvm language reference manual,” 2026, accessed: 2026-03-23. [Online]. Available: https://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html

    2026

  16. [24]

    Contributing to llvm - how to submit a patch,

    ——, “Contributing to llvm - how to submit a patch,” 2026, accessed: 2026-06-25. [Online]. Available: https://llvm.org/docs/Contributing. html#how-to-submit-a-patch

    2026

  17. [25]

    Llvm ub-aware interpreter,

    Y . Zheng, “Llvm ub-aware interpreter,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/dtcxzyw/llvm-ub-aware-interpreter

    2024

  18. [26]

    Githhub rest api documentation - github docs,

    GitHub, “Githhub rest api documentation - github docs,” 2026, accessed: 2026-06-25. [Online]. Available: https://docs.github.com/en/ rest?apiVersion=2026-03-10

    2026

  19. [27]

    Process-centric analysis of agentic software systems,

    S. Liu, Y . Chen, R. Krishna, S. Sinha, J. Ganhotra, and R. Jabbarvand, “Process-centric analysis of agentic software systems,” 2026. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.02393

    2026 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Google: Gemini 3.1 pro preview custom tools,

    OpenRouter, “Google: Gemini 3.1 pro preview custom tools,” 2026, accessed: 2026-03-29. [Online]. Available: https://openrouter.ai/google/ gemini-3.1-pro-preview-customtools

    2026

  21. [29]

    Deepseek-v3.2 release,

    DeepSeek, “Deepseek-v3.2 release,” 2026, accessed: 2026-03-29. [Online]. Available: https://api-docs.deepseek.com/news/news251201

    2026

  22. [30]

    Qwen3.5-plus,

    A. C. M. Studio, “Qwen3.5-plus,” 2026, accessed: 2026-03-

    2026

  23. [31]

    Available: https://modelstudio.console.alibabacloud

    [Online]. Available: https://modelstudio.console.alibabacloud. com/ap-southeast-1/?tab=doc#/doc/?type=model&url=2840914_2& modelId=group-qwen3.5-plus

  24. [32]

    Ai code review | greptile,

    I. Tabnam, “Ai code review | greptile,” 2026, accessed: 2026-03-29. [Online]. Available: https://www.greptile.com

    2026

  25. [33]

    Gpt-5.5 | openai,

    OpenAI, “Gpt-5.5 | openai,” 2026, accessed: 2026-06-28. [Online]. Available: https://openai.com/index/introducing-gpt-5-5/

    2026

  26. [34]

    An empirical study of optimization bugs in gcc and llvm,

    Z. Zhou, Z. Ren, G. Gao, and H. Jiang, “An empirical study of optimization bugs in gcc and llvm,”Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 174, p. 110884, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0164121220302740

    2021

  27. [35]

    Optimization-directed compiler fuzzing for continuous translation validation,

    J. Kwon, B. Jang, J. Lee, and K. Heo, “Optimization-directed compiler fuzzing for continuous translation validation,”Proc. ACM Program. Lang., vol. 9, no. PLDI, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3729275

    2025 doi

  28. [36]

    Cl-bench: A benchmark for context learning,

    S. Dou, M. Zhang, Z. Yin, C. Huang, Y . Shen, J. Wang, J. Chen, Y . Ni, J. Ye, C. Zhang, H. Xie, J. Hu, S. Wang, W. Wang, Y . Xiao, Y . Liu, Z. Xu, Z. Guo, P. Zhou, T. Gui, Z. Wu, X. Qiu, Q. Zhang, X. Huang, Y .-G. Jiang, D. Wang, and S. Yao, “Cl-bench: A benchmark for context...

    2026

  29. [37]

    Finding and understanding bugs in c compilers,

    X. Yang, Y . Chen, E. Eide, and J. Regehr, “Finding and understanding bugs in c compilers,” inProceedings of the 32nd ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, ser. PLDI ’11, 2011, p. 283–294. [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/10.1145/199349...

    2011 doi

  30. [38]

    Many-core compiler fuzzing,

    C. Lidbury, A. Lascu, N. Chong, and A. F. Donaldson, “Many-core compiler fuzzing,” inProceedings of the 36th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, ser. PLDI ’15, 2015, pp. 65–76. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10. 1145/2813885.2737986

    2015

  31. [39]

    Compiler testing via a theory of sound optimisations in the c11/c++11 memory model,

    R. Morisset, P. Pawan, and F. Zappa Nardelli, “Compiler testing via a theory of sound optimisations in the c11/c++11 memory model,” in Proceedings of the 34th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, ser. PLDI ’13, 2013, p. 187–196. [Online]. A...

    2013 doi

  32. [40]

    Random testing for c and c++ compilers with yarpgen,

    V . Livinskii, D. Babokin, and J. Regehr, “Random testing for c and c++ compilers with yarpgen,”Proc. ACM Program. Lang., vol. 4, no. OOPSLA, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3428264

    2020 doi

  33. [41]

    Fuzzing loop optimizations in compilers for c++ and data- parallel languages,

    ——, “Fuzzing loop optimizations in compilers for c++ and data- parallel languages,”Proc. ACM Program. Lang., vol. 7, no. PLDI,

  34. [42]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3591295

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3591295

    doi

  35. [43]

    Compiler validation via equivalence modulo inputs,

    V . Le, M. Afshari, and Z. Su, “Compiler validation via equivalence modulo inputs,” inProceedings of the 35th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, ser. PLDI’ 14, 2014, pp. 216–226. [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/10.1145/2666356.2594334

    2014 doi

  36. [44]

    Finding deep compiler bugs via guided stochastic program mutation,

    V . Le, C. Sun, and Z. Su, “Finding deep compiler bugs via guided stochastic program mutation,” inProceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications, ser. OOPSLA’ 15, 2015, pp. 386–399. [Online]. Av...

    2015 doi

  37. [45]

    Grayc: Greybox fuzzing of compilers and analysers for c,

    K. Even-Mendoza, A. Sharma, A. F. Donaldson, and C. Cadar, “Grayc: Greybox fuzzing of compilers and analysers for c,” inProceedings of the 32nd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, ser. ISSTA ’23, 2023, p. 1219–1231. [Online]. Available: https:...

    2023 doi

  38. [46]

    Coverage-directed differential testing of jvm implementations,

    Y . Chen, T. Su, C. Sun, Z. Su, and J. Zhao, “Coverage-directed differential testing of jvm implementations,” inproceedings of the 37th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, ser. PLDI’ 16, 2016, pp. 85–99. [Online]. Available: https://doi.or...

    2016 doi

  39. [47]

    Fuzzing with code fragments,

    C. Holler, K. Herzig, and A. Zeller, “Fuzzing with code fragments,” in Proceedings of the 21st USENIX Conference on Security Symposium, ser. Security’12, 2012, p. 38

    2012

  40. [48]

    Boosting compiler testing by injecting real-world code,

    S. Li, T. Theodoridis, and Z. Su, “Boosting compiler testing by injecting real-world code,”Proc. ACM Program. Lang., vol. 8, no. PLDI, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3656386

    2024 doi

  41. [49]

    Targeted testing of compiler optimizations via grammar-level composition styles,

    Z. Zhou, B. Limpanukorn, H. J. Kang, J. Wang, Y . Wu, A. Kiss, R. Hodovan, and M. Kim, “Targeted testing of compiler optimizations via grammar-level composition styles,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.04344

    2025

  42. [50]

    Validating jvm compilers via maximizing optimization interactions,

    Z. Xie, M. Wen, S. Qiu, and H. Jin, “Validating jvm compilers via maximizing optimization interactions,” inProceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, Volume 4, ser. ASPLOS ’24, 2025, p. 345–360...

    2025 doi

  43. [51]

    An empirical study on code review activity prediction and its impact in practice,

    D. Olewicki, S. Habchi, and B. Adams, “An empirical study on code review activity prediction and its impact in practice,”Proc. ACM Softw. Eng., vol. 1, no. FSE, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3660806

    2024 doi

  44. [52]

    Can llms replace human evaluators? an empirical study of llm-as-a-judge in software engineering,

    R. Wang, J. Guo, C. Gao, G. Fan, C. Y . Chong, and X. Xia, “Can llms replace human evaluators? an empirical study of llm-as-a-judge in software engineering,”Proc. ACM Softw. Eng., vol. 2, no. ISSTA,

  45. [53]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3728963

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3728963

    doi

  46. [54]

    Code review automation: Strengths and weaknesses of the state of the art,

    R. Tufano, O. Dabi ´c, A. Mastropaolo, M. Ciniselli, and G. Bavota, “Code review automation: Strengths and weaknesses of the state of the art,”IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 338–353, 2024

    2024

  47. [55]

    CodeAgent: Autonomous communicative agents for code review,

    X. Tang, K. Kim, Y . Song, C. Lothritz, B. Li, S. Ezzini, H. Tian, J. Klein, and T. F. Bissyandé, “CodeAgent: Autonomous communicative agents for code review,” inProceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2024, pp. 11 279–11 313. [O...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed July 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.