{"id":"a983683044eb070248d88cbab95ee601fcaf8635da3dde080b4153dff393e3f9","title":"KG-AST for Cheaper CI/CD: Budgeted Test Selection and AI Bug Review","argument":"Henry Yeung’s paper studies KG-AST, which uses git history and code-graph features to rank commits by risk before heavy tests or AI review run. It also gives the AI reviewer a graph slice around a change, rather than only the diff. In a study of 155 open-source projects across 11 languages, heavy testing of the riskiest 20% of commits covered 49–64% of bug-introducing commits, depending on language; random selection covered 20%, and testing the biggest change first covered 40–55%. In 20 Java projects, the reported coverage was 64.6% versus 49.5% for the biggest-change baseline, with the model ahead in 19 projects. For AI review, exact matches to later-fixed defects rose from 26% with only the diff to 32% with graph context; about half of unmatched findings were judged real by independent AI judges. A static call-graph selector ran about 8% of a test suite while including a test written for the fix in 85% of 67 fix commits. The paper also reports that Poincare embedding added nothing measurable. These results describe the study’s measures, not measured CI minutes: the budget metric assumes a heavy test catches the bug it covers, and the authors note noisy labels.","topicIds":["intelligence-and-discovery"],"domain":"science","claimType":"attributed reading","limits":"The authors say the labels are noisy and that the budget metric assumes a heavy test catches the bug it covers. The authors report that no CI minutes were measured, so the budget results are not measurements of actual CI time. The abstract does not establish how the reported results would transfer to projects outside the studied 155 open-source projects.","speaker":{"name":"Yeung, Henry","roleAtSource":"Article author"},"source":{"title":"KG-AST for Cheaper CI/CD: Budgeted Test Selection and AI Bug Review","publisher":"arXiv cs.AI","format":"Article","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06950","publishedAt":"2026-11-03","dateBasis":"Date basis not provided."},"evidence":[{"text":"KG-AST ranks commits using git history and code-graph features, then allocates heavy tests or AI review to higher-risk commits; its AI reviewer receives a graph slice around the change.","excerpt":"scores each commit risk from git history and code-graph features before heavy tests or AI review run","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06950","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"Across 155 open-source projects in 11 languages, testing the riskiest 20% covered 49–64% of bug-introducing commits, compared with 20% for random selection and 40–55% for testing the biggest change first.","excerpt":"On 155 open-source projects in 11 languages, a single cross-language model trained on other projects ranks commits so that heavy testing of the riskiest 20% covers 49-64% of bug-introducing commits depending on the language, against 20% for random selection and 40-55% for testing the biggest change","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06950","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"In 20 Java projects, the reported gain at a 20% budget was 15.1 points, and the model won in 19 projects.","excerpt":"In 20 Java projects the gain at a 20% budget is 15.1 points (64.6% vs 49.5%, 95% interval +11.6 to +18.4), and the model wins in 19 of the 20 projects.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06950","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"AI review matched 26% of later-fixed defects exactly using only a commit’s diff and 32% with graph context; about half of unmatched findings were judged real by independent AI judges.","excerpt":"An AI reviewer that sees only a commit's diff finds 26% of later-fixed defects exactly (32% with graph context), and about half of its findings that did not match a later fix were judged real by independent AI judges.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06950","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"The authors report that Poincare embedding added nothing measurable in the evaluated tasks.","excerpt":"The Poincare embedding used in our retrieval work adds nothing measurable here: commit-risk AUC, bug review and severity ranking are unchanged or worse.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06950","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"The study’s budget metric assumes a heavy test catches the bug it covers, and the authors did not measure CI minutes.","excerpt":"The labels are noisy and the budget metric assumes a heavy test catches the bug it covers; no CI minutes were measured.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06950","relationship":"Source-stated"}],"sourceMedia":{"status":"not_found","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06950","checkedAt":"2026-11-09T07:34:07.015Z","items":[],"note":"No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction."},"assumptions":[],"openQuestion":{"attribution":"Open question","text":"How would KG-AST’s budgeted results compare when measured in actual CI minutes, which the paper says it did not measure?"},"whatWouldChangeView":{"attribution":"Change condition not recorded","text":""},"editorialComparisons":[],"live":{"title":"KG-AST for Cheaper CI/CD: Budgeted Test Selection and AI Bug Review","summary":"Henry Yeung’s paper studies KG-AST, which uses git history and code-graph features to rank commits by risk before heavy tests or AI review run. It also gives the AI reviewer a graph slice around a change, rather than only the diff. In a study of 155 open-source projects across 11 languages, heavy testing of the riskiest 20% of commits covered 49–64% of bug-introducing commits, depending on language; random selection covered 20%, and testing the biggest change first covered 40–55%. In 20 Java projects, the reported coverage was 64.6% versus 49.5% for the biggest-change baseline, with the model ahead in 19 projects. For AI review, exact matches to later-fixed defects rose from 26% with only the diff to 32% with graph context; about half of unmatched findings were judged real by independent AI judges. A static call-graph selector ran about 8% of a test suite while including a test written for the fix in 85% of 67 fix commits. The paper also reports that Poincare embedding added nothing measurable. These results describe the study’s measures, not measured CI minutes: the budget metric assumes a heavy test catches the bug it covers, and the authors note noisy labels.","question":"How would KG-AST’s budgeted results compare when measured in actual CI minutes, which the paper says it did not measure?","claims":[{"text":"KG-AST ranks commits using git history and code-graph features, then allocates heavy tests or AI review to higher-risk commits; its AI reviewer receives a graph slice around the change.","excerpt":"scores each commit risk from git history and code-graph features before heavy tests or AI review run","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"Across 155 open-source projects in 11 languages, testing the riskiest 20% covered 49–64% of bug-introducing commits, compared with 20% for random selection and 40–55% for testing the biggest change first.","excerpt":"On 155 open-source projects in 11 languages, a single cross-language model trained on other projects ranks commits so that heavy testing of the riskiest 20% covers 49-64% of bug-introducing commits depending on the language, against 20% for random selection and 40-55% for testing the biggest change","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"In 20 Java projects, the reported gain at a 20% budget was 15.1 points, and the model won in 19 projects.","excerpt":"In 20 Java projects the gain at a 20% budget is 15.1 points (64.6% vs 49.5%, 95% interval +11.6 to +18.4), and the model wins in 19 of the 20 projects.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"AI review matched 26% of later-fixed defects exactly using only a commit’s diff and 32% with graph context; about half of unmatched findings were judged real by independent AI judges.","excerpt":"An AI reviewer that sees only a commit's diff finds 26% of later-fixed defects exactly (32% with graph context), and about half of its findings that did not match a later fix were judged real by independent AI judges.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"The authors report that Poincare embedding added nothing measurable in the evaluated tasks.","excerpt":"The Poincare embedding used in our retrieval work adds nothing measurable here: commit-risk AUC, bug review and severity ranking are unchanged or worse.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"The study’s budget metric assumes a heavy test catches the bug it covers, and the authors did not measure CI minutes.","excerpt":"The labels are noisy and the budget metric assumes a heavy test catches the bug it covers; no CI minutes were measured.","support":"source-stated"}],"limitations":["The authors say the labels are noisy and that the budget metric assumes a heavy test catches the bug it covers.","The authors report that no CI minutes were measured, so the budget results are not measurements of actual CI time.","The abstract does not establish how the reported results would transfer to projects outside the studied 155 open-source projects."],"mediaId":"4db1a3848b7c15a64dc92e887ec338b6653af5a4722f9b339d397825fa966aae","correctionReason":null,"id":"a983683044eb070248d88cbab95ee601fcaf8635da3dde080b4153dff393e3f9","publicationId":"9d54815c-40e5-4e29-8708-e924b8a3d13f","version":1,"sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06950","sourceTitle":"KG-AST for Cheaper CI/CD: Budgeted Test Selection and AI Bug Review","publisher":"arXiv cs.AI","publishedAt":null,"originalPublished":{"value":"2026-11-03","precision":"day","basis":"publisher_citation_date"},"firstObservedAt":"2026-11-06T05:10:39.352Z","createdAt":"2026-11-08T23:03:46.242Z","historical":true,"entityIds":["arxiv"],"topicIds":["intelligence-and-discovery"],"media":[{"id":"4db1a3848b7c15a64dc92e887ec338b6653af5a4722f9b339d397825fa966aae","kind":"article","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06950","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06950","label":"Read original","provenance":"source_link","verification":{"status":"verified","checkedAt":"2026-11-08T23:02:47.617Z","method":"acquired_source","contentType":"text/html"},"recommendationReason":"Recommended by Jev for understanding this source; checked by Luna."}],"sourceMedia":{"status":"not_found","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06950","checkedAt":"2026-11-09T07:34:07.015Z","items":[],"note":"No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction."},"editorialDecision":{"outcome":"accept","reasonCodes":["material_development"],"rubricVersion":"stream-admission-v5","mediaId":"4db1a3848b7c15a64dc92e887ec338b6653af5a4722f9b339d397825fa966aae","confidence":0.77,"provider":"typesafe","model":"jev-1.13.0","inputHash":"5fcfe663274f6199aa8fff202477252aa38256f44f0796280b75b51a8c0f2cf0","decidedAt":"2026-11-08T23:02:48.544Z"},"provenance":{"textHash":"250589ea364dc117d5fe11f6d4b5745615594fdbd1a6b95feb64dd0ccbc6399d","observationId":"b225a1f13b1861b8733e4aaf6589078c5f5bcf1a467270840ef84933191d3f5d","retrievedAt":"2026-11-08T23:02:47.470Z","kind":"publisher-page","preparer":{"model":"gpt-6-luna","runId":"876881ae-b3c3-4d7c-8048-4b2dffab5147"},"reviewer":{"model":"gpt-6-luna","runId":"7223e193-1729-466c-8a31-8ae254544a26"}},"audit":{"status":"uncertain","reviewedAt":"2026-11-08T23:03:46.242Z","model":"anthropic/claude-opus-5.5"},"sourceAttribution":{"authors":[{"name":"Yeung, Henry","url":null,"kind":"unknown"}],"authorRole":"article-author","hosts":[],"status":"stated","authorRoster":{"truncated":false,"omitted":0,"assertionGroupsOmitted":0},"participation":[{"actor":{"name":"Yeung, Henry","url":null,"kind":"unknown","actorId":null},"role":"author","scope":{"kind":"work-credit","locator":null},"literalCredit":"Yeung, Henry","status":"stated","provenance":{"basis":"head-meta","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06950","locator":"head/meta[name=author|citation_author]"},"assertionId":"eeb7c8ffc5f1bceaa91095ed3e1a4b62081af2168c970b3f3f203eb8aa5fb40f:participation:0","identity":{"version":"entity-identity-v1","status":"unresolved","actorId":null,"canonicalActorId":null,"candidateActorIds":[],"assertions":[],"sourceObservedAt":"2026-11-09T07:34:07.015Z","knowledgeAsOf":null},"sourceVersion":{"snapshotId":"eeb7c8ffc5f1bceaa91095ed3e1a4b62081af2168c970b3f3f203eb8aa5fb40f","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06950","contentSha256":"0d6b3b30f236b39fcf61ca01551e3632de761ec98d4db4b56ed2ddf48faba078","textHash":"250589ea364dc117d5fe11f6d4b5745615594fdbd1a6b95feb64dd0ccbc6399d","observedAt":"2026-11-09T07:34:07.015Z"}}],"participationCoverage":{"total":1,"returned":1,"complete":true,"fullAssertions":"source-metadata-endpoint"},"distribution":null,"publisher":null,"sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06950","snapshotId":"eeb7c8ffc5f1bceaa91095ed3e1a4b62081af2168c970b3f3f203eb8aa5fb40f","contentSha256":"0d6b3b30f236b39fcf61ca01551e3632de761ec98d4db4b56ed2ddf48faba078","textHash":"250589ea364dc117d5fe11f6d4b5745615594fdbd1a6b95feb64dd0ccbc6399d","observedAt":"2026-11-09T07:34:07.015Z","basis":"publisher-page-metadata","sourceLinks":37,"linksTruncated":false,"metadataUrl":"/api/pipeline/stream/a983683044eb070248d88cbab95ee601fcaf8635da3dde080b4153dff393e3f9/source"}},"canonicalUrl":"https://escapemeridian.com/readings/kg-ast-for-cheaper-ci-cd-budgeted-test-selection-and-ai-bug-a9836830","formats":{"html":"/readings/kg-ast-for-cheaper-ci-cd-budgeted-test-selection-and-ai-bug-a9836830","markdown":"/readings/kg-ast-for-cheaper-ci-cd-budgeted-test-selection-and-ai-bug-a9836830.md","json":"/readings/kg-ast-for-cheaper-ci-cd-budgeted-test-selection-and-ai-bug-a9836830.json"},"attribution":"Headline and summary by Escape Meridian, prepared by Luna from the attributed source. A source check is not independent confirmation of the source’s claims.","maintainedGuideLinks":[],"readerContext":{"version":"reader-context-v1","attribution":"Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement.","terms":[],"entities":[{"id":"arxiv","name":"arXiv","kind":"organization","context":"arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.","referenceUrls":["https://arxiv.org/","https://info.arxiv.org/help/api/index.html"],"path":"/entities/arxiv","json":"/entities/arxiv.json","markdown":"/entities/arxiv.md"},{"id":"time","name":"TIME","kind":"organization","context":"TIME is a news magazine publishing reporting on world affairs, business, technology and the workers behind digital services.","referenceUrls":["https://time.com/"],"path":"/entities/time","json":"/entities/time.json","markdown":"/entities/time.md"}]},"researchQuestions":[],"withdrawn":false,"references":{"schemaVersion":1,"target":{"type":"reading","id":"a983683044eb070248d88cbab95ee601fcaf8635da3dde080b4153dff393e3f9","revision":"9d54815c-40e5-4e29-8708-e924b8a3d13f","revisionKind":"publication-id","title":"KG-AST for Cheaper CI/CD: Budgeted Test Selection and AI Bug Review","url":"https://escapemeridian.com/readings/kg-ast-for-cheaper-ci-cd-budgeted-test-selection-and-ai-bug-a9836830"},"source":{"type":"source","id":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06950","revision":"250589ea364dc117d5fe11f6d4b5745615594fdbd1a6b95feb64dd0ccbc6399d","revisionKind":"sha256-source-text","title":"KG-AST for Cheaper CI/CD: Budgeted Test Selection and AI Bug Review","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06950"},"status":"available","items":[],"next":null,"scope":"Explicit citations in public readings and public file attachments to this reading. Shared topics are not citations. Other artifact types need an explicit reference adapter."},"revisions":[{"id":"a983683044eb070248d88cbab95ee601fcaf8635da3dde080b4153dff393e3f9","title":"KG-AST for Cheaper CI/CD: Budgeted Test Selection and AI Bug Review","argument":"Henry Yeung’s paper studies KG-AST, which uses git history and code-graph features to rank commits by risk before heavy tests or AI review run. It also gives the AI reviewer a graph slice around a change, rather than only the diff. In a study of 155 open-source projects across 11 languages, heavy testing of the riskiest 20% of commits covered 49–64% of bug-introducing commits, depending on language; random selection covered 20%, and testing the biggest change first covered 40–55%. In 20 Java projects, the reported coverage was 64.6% versus 49.5% for the biggest-change baseline, with the model ahead in 19 projects. For AI review, exact matches to later-fixed defects rose from 26% with only the diff to 32% with graph context; about half of unmatched findings were judged real by independent AI judges. A static call-graph selector ran about 8% of a test suite while including a test written for the fix in 85% of 67 fix commits. The paper also reports that Poincare embedding added nothing measurable. These results describe the study’s measures, not measured CI minutes: the budget metric assumes a heavy test catches the bug it covers, and the authors note noisy labels.","topicIds":["intelligence-and-discovery"],"domain":"science","claimType":"attributed reading","limits":"The authors say the labels are noisy and that the budget metric assumes a heavy test catches the bug it covers. The authors report that no CI minutes were measured, so the budget results are not measurements of actual CI time. The abstract does not establish how the reported results would transfer to projects outside the studied 155 open-source projects.","speaker":{"name":"Yeung, Henry","roleAtSource":"Article author"},"source":{"title":"KG-AST for Cheaper CI/CD: Budgeted Test Selection and AI Bug Review","publisher":"arXiv cs.AI","format":"Article","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06950","publishedAt":"2026-11-03","dateBasis":"Date basis not provided."},"evidence":[{"text":"KG-AST ranks commits using git history and code-graph features, then allocates heavy tests or AI review to higher-risk commits; its AI reviewer receives a graph slice around the change.","excerpt":"scores each commit risk from git history and code-graph features before heavy tests or AI review run","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06950","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"Across 155 open-source projects in 11 languages, testing the riskiest 20% covered 49–64% of bug-introducing commits, compared with 20% for random selection and 40–55% for testing the biggest change first.","excerpt":"On 155 open-source projects in 11 languages, a single cross-language model trained on other projects ranks commits so that heavy testing of the riskiest 20% covers 49-64% of bug-introducing commits depending on the language, against 20% for random selection and 40-55% for testing the biggest change","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06950","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"In 20 Java projects, the reported gain at a 20% budget was 15.1 points, and the model won in 19 projects.","excerpt":"In 20 Java projects the gain at a 20% budget is 15.1 points (64.6% vs 49.5%, 95% interval +11.6 to +18.4), and the model wins in 19 of the 20 projects.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06950","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"AI review matched 26% of later-fixed defects exactly using only a commit’s diff and 32% with graph context; about half of unmatched findings were judged real by independent AI judges.","excerpt":"An AI reviewer that sees only a commit's diff finds 26% of later-fixed defects exactly (32% with graph context), and about half of its findings that did not match a later fix were judged real by independent AI judges.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06950","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"The authors report that Poincare embedding added nothing measurable in the evaluated tasks.","excerpt":"The Poincare embedding used in our retrieval work adds nothing measurable here: commit-risk AUC, bug review and severity ranking are unchanged or worse.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06950","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"The study’s budget metric assumes a heavy test catches the bug it covers, and the authors did not measure CI minutes.","excerpt":"The labels are noisy and the budget metric assumes a heavy test catches the bug it covers; no CI minutes were measured.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06950","relationship":"Source-stated"}],"sourceMedia":{"status":"not_found","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06950","checkedAt":"2026-11-09T07:34:07.015Z","items":[],"note":"No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction."},"assumptions":[],"openQuestion":{"attribution":"Open question","text":"How would KG-AST’s budgeted results compare when measured in actual CI minutes, which the paper says it did not measure?"},"whatWouldChangeView":{"attribution":"Change condition not recorded","text":""},"editorialComparisons":[],"live":{"title":"KG-AST for Cheaper CI/CD: Budgeted Test Selection and AI Bug Review","summary":"Henry Yeung’s paper studies KG-AST, which uses git history and code-graph features to rank commits by risk before heavy tests or AI review run. It also gives the AI reviewer a graph slice around a change, rather than only the diff. In a study of 155 open-source projects across 11 languages, heavy testing of the riskiest 20% of commits covered 49–64% of bug-introducing commits, depending on language; random selection covered 20%, and testing the biggest change first covered 40–55%. In 20 Java projects, the reported coverage was 64.6% versus 49.5% for the biggest-change baseline, with the model ahead in 19 projects. For AI review, exact matches to later-fixed defects rose from 26% with only the diff to 32% with graph context; about half of unmatched findings were judged real by independent AI judges. A static call-graph selector ran about 8% of a test suite while including a test written for the fix in 85% of 67 fix commits. The paper also reports that Poincare embedding added nothing measurable. These results describe the study’s measures, not measured CI minutes: the budget metric assumes a heavy test catches the bug it covers, and the authors note noisy labels.","question":"How would KG-AST’s budgeted results compare when measured in actual CI minutes, which the paper says it did not measure?","claims":[{"text":"KG-AST ranks commits using git history and code-graph features, then allocates heavy tests or AI review to higher-risk commits; its AI reviewer receives a graph slice around the change.","excerpt":"scores each commit risk from git history and code-graph features before heavy tests or AI review run","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"Across 155 open-source projects in 11 languages, testing the riskiest 20% covered 49–64% of bug-introducing commits, compared with 20% for random selection and 40–55% for testing the biggest change first.","excerpt":"On 155 open-source projects in 11 languages, a single cross-language model trained on other projects ranks commits so that heavy testing of the riskiest 20% covers 49-64% of bug-introducing commits depending on the language, against 20% for random selection and 40-55% for testing the biggest change","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"In 20 Java projects, the reported gain at a 20% budget was 15.1 points, and the model won in 19 projects.","excerpt":"In 20 Java projects the gain at a 20% budget is 15.1 points (64.6% vs 49.5%, 95% interval +11.6 to +18.4), and the model wins in 19 of the 20 projects.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"AI review matched 26% of later-fixed defects exactly using only a commit’s diff and 32% with graph context; about half of unmatched findings were judged real by independent AI judges.","excerpt":"An AI reviewer that sees only a commit's diff finds 26% of later-fixed defects exactly (32% with graph context), and about half of its findings that did not match a later fix were judged real by independent AI judges.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"The authors report that Poincare embedding added nothing measurable in the evaluated tasks.","excerpt":"The Poincare embedding used in our retrieval work adds nothing measurable here: commit-risk AUC, bug review and severity ranking are unchanged or worse.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"The study’s budget metric assumes a heavy test catches the bug it covers, and the authors did not measure CI minutes.","excerpt":"The labels are noisy and the budget metric assumes a heavy test catches the bug it covers; no CI minutes were measured.","support":"source-stated"}],"limitations":["The authors say the labels are noisy and that the budget metric assumes a heavy test catches the bug it covers.","The authors report that no CI minutes were measured, so the budget results are not measurements of actual CI time.","The abstract does not establish how the reported results would transfer to projects outside the studied 155 open-source projects."],"mediaId":"4db1a3848b7c15a64dc92e887ec338b6653af5a4722f9b339d397825fa966aae","correctionReason":null,"id":"a983683044eb070248d88cbab95ee601fcaf8635da3dde080b4153dff393e3f9","publicationId":"9d54815c-40e5-4e29-8708-e924b8a3d13f","version":1,"sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06950","sourceTitle":"KG-AST for Cheaper CI/CD: Budgeted Test Selection and AI Bug Review","publisher":"arXiv cs.AI","publishedAt":null,"originalPublished":{"value":"2026-11-03","precision":"day","basis":"publisher_citation_date"},"firstObservedAt":"2026-11-06T05:10:39.352Z","createdAt":"2026-11-08T23:03:46.242Z","historical":true,"entityIds":["arxiv"],"topicIds":["intelligence-and-discovery"],"media":[{"id":"4db1a3848b7c15a64dc92e887ec338b6653af5a4722f9b339d397825fa966aae","kind":"article","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06950","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06950","label":"Read original","provenance":"source_link","verification":{"status":"verified","checkedAt":"2026-11-08T23:02:47.617Z","method":"acquired_source","contentType":"text/html"},"recommendationReason":"Recommended by Jev for understanding this source; checked by Luna."}],"sourceMedia":{"status":"not_found","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06950","checkedAt":"2026-11-09T07:34:07.015Z","items":[],"note":"No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction."},"editorialDecision":{"outcome":"accept","reasonCodes":["material_development"],"rubricVersion":"stream-admission-v5","mediaId":"4db1a3848b7c15a64dc92e887ec338b6653af5a4722f9b339d397825fa966aae","confidence":0.77,"provider":"typesafe","model":"jev-1.13.0","inputHash":"5fcfe663274f6199aa8fff202477252aa38256f44f0796280b75b51a8c0f2cf0","decidedAt":"2026-11-08T23:02:48.544Z"},"provenance":{"textHash":"250589ea364dc117d5fe11f6d4b5745615594fdbd1a6b95feb64dd0ccbc6399d","observationId":"b225a1f13b1861b8733e4aaf6589078c5f5bcf1a467270840ef84933191d3f5d","retrievedAt":"2026-11-08T23:02:47.470Z","kind":"publisher-page","preparer":{"model":"gpt-6-luna","runId":"876881ae-b3c3-4d7c-8048-4b2dffab5147"},"reviewer":{"model":"gpt-6-luna","runId":"7223e193-1729-466c-8a31-8ae254544a26"}},"audit":{"status":"uncertain","reviewedAt":"2026-11-08T23:03:46.242Z","model":"anthropic/claude-opus-5.5"},"sourceAttribution":{"authors":[{"name":"Yeung, Henry","url":null,"kind":"unknown"}],"authorRole":"article-author","hosts":[],"status":"stated","authorRoster":{"truncated":false,"omitted":0,"assertionGroupsOmitted":0},"participation":[{"actor":{"name":"Yeung, Henry","url":null,"kind":"unknown","actorId":null},"role":"author","scope":{"kind":"work-credit","locator":null},"literalCredit":"Yeung, Henry","status":"stated","provenance":{"basis":"head-meta","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06950","locator":"head/meta[name=author|citation_author]"},"assertionId":"eeb7c8ffc5f1bceaa91095ed3e1a4b62081af2168c970b3f3f203eb8aa5fb40f:participation:0","identity":{"version":"entity-identity-v1","status":"unresolved","actorId":null,"canonicalActorId":null,"candidateActorIds":[],"assertions":[],"sourceObservedAt":"2026-11-09T07:34:07.015Z","knowledgeAsOf":null},"sourceVersion":{"snapshotId":"eeb7c8ffc5f1bceaa91095ed3e1a4b62081af2168c970b3f3f203eb8aa5fb40f","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06950","contentSha256":"0d6b3b30f236b39fcf61ca01551e3632de761ec98d4db4b56ed2ddf48faba078","textHash":"250589ea364dc117d5fe11f6d4b5745615594fdbd1a6b95feb64dd0ccbc6399d","observedAt":"2026-11-09T07:34:07.015Z"}}],"participationCoverage":{"total":1,"returned":1,"complete":true,"fullAssertions":"source-metadata-endpoint"},"distribution":null,"publisher":null,"sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06950","snapshotId":"eeb7c8ffc5f1bceaa91095ed3e1a4b62081af2168c970b3f3f203eb8aa5fb40f","contentSha256":"0d6b3b30f236b39fcf61ca01551e3632de761ec98d4db4b56ed2ddf48faba078","textHash":"250589ea364dc117d5fe11f6d4b5745615594fdbd1a6b95feb64dd0ccbc6399d","observedAt":"2026-11-09T07:34:07.015Z","basis":"publisher-page-metadata","sourceLinks":37,"linksTruncated":false,"metadataUrl":"/api/pipeline/stream/a983683044eb070248d88cbab95ee601fcaf8635da3dde080b4153dff393e3f9/source"}}}],"audits":[{"publicationId":"9d54815c-40e5-4e29-8708-e924b8a3d13f","verdict":"uncertain","findings":[{"dimension":"attribution","status":"pass","explanation":"The paper is correctly attributed to Henry Yeung on arXiv, and its results are kept as reported findings. Minor fix: the source lists a single author, so 'the authors note noisy labels' and the plural in the limitations should read 'the author'.","excerpt":"Authors:Henry Yeung"},{"dimension":"summary","status":"uncertain","explanation":"The numbers are faithful, but a non-specialist would struggle with central terms left unexplained: CI/CD, commit, diff, git history, code-graph features, call-graph selector, Poincare embedding and AUC. Tooltips or brief glosses would fix this. The reading also lists results without saying why they matter: spending scarce testing and review effort on the commits most likely to add bugs. It drops a key condition: a single cross-language model trained on other projects. The phrase 'rather than only the diff' slightly reframes the source's 'only a graph slice', which describes limiting the reviewer's context.","excerpt":"a single cross-language model trained on other projects ranks commits"},{"dimension":"date","status":"pass","explanation":"The originalPublished date of 2026-11-03 matches the arXiv v1 submission date. The later feed date is not used.","excerpt":"[Submitted on 3 Nov 2026]"},{"dimension":"support","status":"pass","explanation":"Every claim and figure matches the abstract: 49-64% coverage, 20% for random selection, 40-55% for the biggest-change baseline, 64.6% vs 49.5% in Java with wins in 19 of 20 projects, 26%/32% for AI review, about 8% of the suite with 85% of 67 fix commits, and no gain from Poincare. The limitations and the CI-minutes question follow from the source's own caveat and add no unsupported benefits.","excerpt":"The labels are noisy and the budget metric assumes a heavy test catches the bug it covers; no CI minutes were measured."},{"dimension":"media","status":"pass","explanation":"The selected media is the verified direct link to the arXiv abstract page, which is the original source.","excerpt":null}],"createdAt":"2026-11-08T23:03:46.242Z","model":"anthropic/claude-opus-5.5"}],"correctionUrl":"https://escapemeridian.com/corrections/"}