Musfiqur Rahman

Musfiqur Rahman, SayedHassan Khatoonabadi, Ahmad Abdellatif et al.

Nowadays, software systems tend to include Artificial Intelligence (AI) components. Changes in the operational environment have been known to negatively impact the stability of AI-enabled software systems by causing unintended changes in behavior. However, how an environment configuration impacts the behavior of such systems has yet to be explored. Understanding and quantifying the degree of instability caused by different environment settings can help practitioners decide the best environment configuration for the most stable AI systems. To achieve this goal, we performed experiments with eight different combinations of three key environment variables (operating system, Python version, and CPU architecture) on $30$ open-source AI-enabled systems using the Travis CI platform. We determine the existence and the degree of instability introduced by each configuration using three metrics: the output of an AI component of the system (model performance), the time required to build and run the system (processing time), and the cost associated with building and running the system (expense). Our results indicate that changes in environment configurations lead to instability across all three metrics; however, it is observed more frequently with respect to processing time and expense rather than model performance. For example, between Linux and MacOS, instability is observed in 23\%, 96.67\%, and 100\% of the studied projects in model performance, processing time, and expense, respectively. Our findings underscore the importance of identifying the optimal combination of configuration settings to mitigate drops in model performance and reduce the processing time and expense before deploying an AI-enabled system.

Musfiqur Rahman, Emad Shihab

The integration of AI agents as coding assistants into software development has raised questions about the long-term viability of AI agent-generated code. A prevailing hypothesis within the software engineering community suggests this code is "disposable", meaning it is merged quickly but discarded shortly thereafter. If true, organizations risk shifting maintenance burden from generation to post-deployment remediation. We investigate this hypothesis through survival analysis of 201 open-source projects, tracking over 200,000 code units authored by AI agents versus humans. Contrary to the disposable code narrative, agent-authored code survives significantly longer: at the line level, it exhibits a 15.8 percentage-point lower modification rate and 16% lower hazard of modification (HR = 0.842, p < 0.001). However, modification profiles differ. Agent-authored code shows modestly elevated corrective rates (26.3% vs. 23.0%), while human code shows higher adaptive rates. However, the effect sizes are small (Cramér's V = 0.116), and per-agent variation exceeds the agent-human gap. Turning to prediction, textual features can identify modification-prone code (AUC-ROC = 0.671), but predicting when modifications occur remains challenging (Macro F1 = 0.285), suggesting timing depends on external organizational dynamics. The bottleneck for agent-generated code may not be generation quality, but the organizational practices that govern its long-term evolution.

Musfiqur Rahman, SayedHassan Khatoonabadi, Emad Shihab

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong performance on function-level code generation benchmarks, yet real-world software development increasingly demands class-level implementations that integrate multiple methods, attributes, and dependencies within authentic project contexts. This gap between benchmark performance and practical utility raises critical questions about LLMs' readiness for production code assistance, particularly regarding their ability to generalize across familiar and novel codebases. We introduce a benchmark derived from real-world open-source repositories, comprising classes divided into seen and unseen partitions to evaluate generalization under practical conditions. We systematically examine how input specification completeness and retrieval-augmented generation affect class-level correctness across multiple state-of-the-art LLMs. Our evaluation reveals a substantial performance gap: while LLMs achieve 84 to 89% correctness on synthetic benchmarks, they attain only 25 to 34% on real-world class tasks, with minimal distinction between familiar and novel codebases. Comprehensive documentation provides marginal improvements (1 to 3%), whereas retrieval augmentation yields greater gains (4 to 7%) by supplying concrete implementation patterns. Error analysis identifies AttributeError, TypeError, and AssertionError as dominant failure modes, with distinct patterns between synthetic and real-world scenarios. These findings provide actionable insights for enhancing context modelling, documentation strategies, and retrieval integration in production code assistance tools.

Musfiqur Rahman, SayedHassan Khatoonabadi, Ahmad Abdellatif et al.

The adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) for code generation risks incorporating vulnerable code into software systems. Existing detectors face two critical limitations: a lack of systematic cross-model validation and opaque "black box" operation. We address this through a comparative study of code generated by four distinct LLMs: GPT-3.5, Claude 3 Haiku, Claude Haiku 4.5, and GPT-OSS. Analyzing 14,485 Python functions and 11,913 classes from the CodeSearchNet dataset, we generated corresponding code with all four LLMs. Using interpretable software metrics, we trained CatBoost classifiers for each configuration. Our analysis reveals that granularity effects dominate model differences by a factor of 8.6, with negligible feature overlap, indicating that function-level and class-level detection rely on fundamentally disjoint structural signatures. We discover critical granularity-dependent inversions: while modern models (Claude, GPT-OSS) are more detectable at the class level, GPT-3.5 is an anomaly that uniquely excels at the function level. SHAP analysis identifies the Comment-to-Code Ratio as the sole universal discriminator. However, its predictive magnitude varies drastically across models, explaining why detectors trained on specific LLMs fail to generalize. Our findings demonstrate that GPT-3.5's exceptional detectability (AUC-ROC 0.96) is unrepresentative of contemporary models (AUC-ROC approximately between 0.68 and 0.80). Robust detection requires moving beyond single-model studies to account for substantial diversity in structural fingerprints across architectures and granularities.

Musfiqur Rahman, SayedHassan Khatoonabadi, Emad Shihab

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated promising capabilities in code generation tasks. However, most existing benchmarks focus on isolated functions and fail to capture the complexity of real-world, class-level software structures. To address this gap, we introduce a large-scale, Python class-level dataset curated from $13{,}174$ real-world open-source projects. The dataset contains over 842,000 class skeletons, each including class and method signatures, along with associated docstrings when available. We preserve structural and contextual dependencies critical to realistic software development scenarios and enrich the dataset with static code metrics to support downstream analysis. To evaluate the usefulness of this dataset, we use extracted class skeletons as prompts for GPT-4 to generate full class implementations. Results show that the LLM-generated classes exhibit strong lexical and structural similarity to human-written counterparts, with average ROUGE@L, BLEU, and TSED scores of 0.80, 0.59, and 0.73, respectively. These findings confirm that well-structured prompts derived from real-world class skeletons significantly enhance LLM performance in class-level code generation. This dataset offers a valuable resource for benchmarking, training, and improving LLMs in realistic software engineering contexts.