arXiv preprint ·
KG-AST for Cheaper CI/CD: Budgeted Test Selection and AI Bug Review
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Continuous integration and AI-assisted review spend the same budget on every commit, although few commits introduce bugs. We study KG-AST, which scores each commit risk from git history and code-graph features before heavy tests or AI review run, so the budget goes to the riskiest commits first, and which hands the AI reviewer only a graph slice around the change. 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 first. Every language beats the biggest-change baseline, by 3.8 to 13.2 points. 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. About twelve training projects suffice; richer features, tuning and cleaner labels did not help. 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. A static call-graph selector runs about 8% of a test suite while including a test written for the fix in 85% of 67 fix commits. The Poincare embedding used in our retrieval work adds nothing measurable here: commit-risk AUC, bug review and severity ranking are unchanged or worse. The labels are noisy and the budget metric assumes a heavy test catches the bug it covers; no CI minutes were measured.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Software Engineering
Validation-Gated ML Pipeline Synthesis with Expert-Grounded Self-Evolving Skills
DARE: Difficulty Analysis for Repair Enhancement
Are We Just Applying LLMs? What SE Research Studies, Underexplores, and Could Do Next in the LLM Era
A Hybrid Approach for Automated Security Pattern Recovery
Planning-Coding Separation in LLM-Based Code Generation: An Empirical Study
Get the few papers worth your time in Software Engineering every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.