Brian Fitzgerald

Julien Abadji, Marah Abdin, Connor Adams et al.

We present Laguna M.1 and Laguna XS.2, two Mixture-of-Experts foundation models built for long-horizon, agentic coding: M.1 has $225.8$B total parameters ($23.4$B activated per token) and XS.2 has $33.4$B total ($3$B activated). Both models were trained from scratch end-to-end inside the same internal system that we refer to as our Model Factory: a tightly-integrated stack of versioned data, training, evaluation, and inference components that turn model development into an industrial process. We describe the principles and design choices of the Model Factory and also detail the end-to-end training process of our models, throughout pre-training data and architecture, post-training stages, evaluation, and quantization. On agentic software engineering and terminal benchmarks (SWE-bench Verified, SWE-bench Multilingual, SWE-Bench Pro, and Terminal-Bench 2.0) M.1 and XS.2 are competitive with state-of-the-art open models in their respective weight classes. Laguna XS.2 weights are released under Apache~2.0 at https://huggingface.co/collections/poolside/laguna-xs2.

Sebastian Baltes, Florian Angermeir, Chetan Arora et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used in software engineering (SE) research and practice, yet their non-determinism, opaque training data, and rapidly evolving models threaten the reproducibility and replicability of empirical studies. We address this challenge through a collaborative effort of 22 researchers, presenting a taxonomy of seven study types that organizes how LLMs are used in SE research, together with eight guidelines for designing and reporting such studies. Each guideline distinguishes requirements (must) from recommended practices (should) and is contextualized by the study types it applies to. Our guidelines recommend that researchers: (1) declare LLM usage and role; (2) report model versions, configurations, and customizations; (3) document the tool architecture beyond the model; (4) disclose prompts, their development, and interaction logs; (5) validate LLM outputs with humans; (6) include an open LLM as a baseline; (7) use suitable baselines, benchmarks, and metrics; and (8) articulate limitations and mitigations. We complement the guidelines with an applicability matrix mapping guidelines to study types and a reporting checklist for authors and reviewers. We maintain the study types and guidelines online as a living resource for the community to use and shape (llm-guidelines$.$org).

Ashish Rajendra Sai, Jim Buckley, Brian Fitzgerald et al.

Bitcoin introduced delegation of control over a monetary system from a select few to all who participate in that system. This delegation is known as the decentralization of controlling power and is a powerful security mechanism for the ecosystem. After the introduction of Bitcoin, the field of cryptocurrency has seen widespread attention from industry and academia, so much so that the original novel contribution of Bitcoin i.e. decentralization, may be overlooked, due to decentralizations assumed fundamental existence for the functioning of such cryptoassets. However recent studies have observed a trend of increased centralization in cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Ethereum. As this increased centralization has an impact the security of the blockchain, it is crucial that it is measured, towards adequate control. This research derives an initial taxonomy of centralization present in decentralized blockchains through rigorous synthesis using a systematic literature review. This is followed by iterative refinement through expert interviews. We systematically analyzed 89 research papers published between 2009 and 2019. Our study contributes to the existing body of knowledge by highlighting the multiple definitions and measurements of centralization in the literature. We identify different aspects of centralization and propose an encompassing taxonomy of centralization concerns. This taxonomy is based on empirically observable and measurable characteristics. It consists of 13 aspects of centralization classified over six architectural layers Governance Network Consensus Incentive Operational and Application. We also discuss how the implications of centralization can vary depending on the aspects studied. We believe that this review and taxonomy provides a comprehensive overview of centralization in decentralized blockchains involving various conceptualizations and measures.