analiza aiqbench
This research evaluates coding agents on the specific task of automatically removing excessive logging code, revealing a significant gap between syntactic validity and semantic alignment with human developer intent. While agents can pass basic checks, they struggle to replicate the nuanced judgment required for logging removal, often missing context or altering unrelated code. The study highlights that effective automation in this domain relies heavily on incorporating commit messages and discussion threads rather than just increasing computational cost.
Towards Automatically Pruning Logging Code with Coding Agents: How Far Are We?
arXiv:2610.04716v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Logging code supports debugging, monitoring, and software maintenance, but excessive logging can add noise, impose runtime overhead, and obscure diagnostic information. While prior research has extensively studied logging code generation and modification, logging removal remains comparatively underexplored. In this paper, we study developer logging removal practices and explore the use of coding agents for this task. We extract and manually validate logging removal cases from Python and Java repositories and derive 10 removal patterns and 11 removal reasons that characterize how and why logging code was removed in real-world software changes. We further construct LogRem, a dataset of 387 real-world cases covering direct logging statement removal, logging infrastructure removal, and logging replacement. We evaluate four coding agents with multiple model settings and compare their outputs with accepted real-world changes. Although 95.6% to 100.0% of outputs pass validity checks, only 11.1% to 19.6% remove the same logging code as the corresponding real-world change while preserving unrelated code. Agents differ through missed removals, extra removals, and unrelated code edits, with substantial variation across logging removal categories and trajectories. Execution cost varies widely, but higher cost does not consistently yield closer alignment. Commit messages and developer discussions provide the largest alignment gains, while taxonomy guidance consistently reduces runtime. Overall, our study establishes logging removal as a distinct software maintenance task and shows that reliable automation depends on accurately determining removal scope while preserving necessary code. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to examine logging code removal from this perspective.
Title:Towards Automatically Pruning Logging Code with Coding Agents: How Far Are We?
Abstract:Logging code supports debugging, monitoring, and software maintenance, but excessive logging can add noise, impose runtime overhead, and obscure diagnostic information. While prior research has extensively studied logging code generation and modification, logging removal remains comparatively underexplored. In this paper, we study developer logging removal practices and explore the use of coding agents for this task. We extract and manually validate logging removal cases from Python and Java repositories and derive 10 removal patterns and 11 removal reasons that characterize how and why logging code was removed in real-world software changes. We further construct LogRem, a dataset of 387 real-world cases covering direct logging statement removal, logging infrastructure removal, and logging replacement. We evaluate four coding agents with multiple model settings and compare their outputs with accepted real-world changes. Although 95.6% to 100.0% of outputs pass validity checks, only 11.1% to 19.6% remove the same logging code as the corresponding real-world change while preserving unrelated code. Agents differ through missed removals, extra removals, and unrelated code edits, with substantial variation across logging removal categories and trajectories. Execution cost varies widely, but higher cost does not consistently yield closer alignment. Commit messages and developer discussions provide the largest alignment gains, while taxonomy guidance consistently reduces runtime. Overall, our study establishes logging removal as a distinct software maintenance task and shows that reliable automation depends on accurately determining removal scope while preserving necessary code. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to examine logging code removal from this perspective.
Software Engineering (cs.SE); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2610.04716 [cs.SE]
(or arXiv:2610.04716v1 [cs.SE] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.04716 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 360 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

Brief independent investigation of agents’ behavior, reasoning and collaboration in the OpenAI / Hugging Face hacking incident
METR · 26 aug. 2026

Why do models task game?
AI Alignment Forum · 6 aug. 2026

[AINews] not much happened today
Latent Space · 18 sept. 2026

[AINews] not much happened today
Latent Space · 10 sept. 2026