Much of the promise of these models relies on learned concepts being high quality .

We thank the reviewers for the detailed and insightful reviews. As the reviews noted, our work 1) introduces "novel Smith et al. [2017] make an explicit connection between small vs. large batch "A small discussion on if the phenomenon has been observed for different datasets/tasks with different optimizers" The phenomenon may not be true for other optimizers such as Adam, though. "concept of "memorizable and generalizable", though intuitive, is sketchy and not formally explained ... authors We acknowledge that the terms "memorizable" and "generalizable" are potentially confusing. We will revise our terminology to clarify this distinction. By "inherently noisy", we refer to the fact that high noise in the datapoints will necessitate larger sample complexity.

Large Language Models (LLMs) may one day replace search engines as the primary portal to information on the Web. In this article, we investigate the societal challenges that such a change could bring. We focus on the roles of LLM Providers, Content Creators, and End Users, and identify 15 types of challenges. With each, we show current mitigation strategies -- both from the technical perspective and the legal perspective. We also discuss the impact of each challenge and point out future research opportunities.

Self-adaptive systems (SASs) are designed to handle changes and uncertainties through a feedback loop with four core functionalities: monitoring, analyzing, planning, and execution. Recently, generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), especially the area of large language models, has shown impressive performance in data comprehension and logical reasoning. These capabilities are highly aligned with the functionalities required in SASs, suggesting a strong potential to employ GenAI to enhance SASs. However, the specific benefits and challenges of employing GenAI in SASs remain unclear. Yet, providing a comprehensive understanding of these benefits and challenges is complex due to several reasons: limited publications in the SAS field, the technological and application diversity within SASs, and the rapid evolution of GenAI technologies. To that end, this paper aims to provide researchers and practitioners a comprehensive snapshot that outlines the potential benefits and challenges of employing GenAI's within SAS. Specifically, we gather, filter, and analyze literature from four distinct research fields and organize them into two main categories to potential benefits: (i) enhancements to the autonomy of SASs centered around the specific functions of the MAPE-K feedback loop, and (ii) improvements in the interaction between humans and SASs within human-on-the-loop settings. From our study, we outline a research roadmap that highlights the challenges of integrating GenAI into SASs. The roadmap starts with outlining key research challenges that need to be tackled to exploit the potential for applying GenAI in the field of SAS. The roadmap concludes with a practical reflection, elaborating on current shortcomings of GenAI and proposing possible mitigation strategies.

Abstract--The prevalence of security vulnerabilities has prompted companies to adopt static application security testing (SAST) tools for vulnerability detection. Nevertheless, these tools frequently exhibit usability limitations, as their generic warning messages do not sufficiently communicate important information to developers, resulting in misunderstandings or oversight of critical findings. In light of recent developments in Large Language Models (LLMs) and their text generation capabilities, our work investigates a hybrid approach that uses LLMs to tackle the SAST explainability challenges. In this paper, we present SAFE, an Integrated Development Environment (IDE) plugin that leverages GPT -4o to explain the causes, impacts, and mitigation strategies of vulnerabilities detected by SAST tools. Our expert user study findings indicate that the explanations generated by SAFE can significantly assist beginner to intermediate developers in understanding and addressing security vulnerabilities, thereby improving the overall usability of SAST tools. With the rise in software security vulnerabilities such as those in the Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses list [1], many companies resort to static application security testing (SAST) tools for the detection of software vulnerabilities.

The rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs) has inspired researchers to integrate them extensively into the academic workflow, potentially reshaping how research is practiced and reviewed. While previous studies highlight the potential of LLMs in supporting research and peer review, their dual roles in the academic workflow and the complex interplay between research and review bring new risks that remain largely underexplored. In this study, we focus on how the deep integration of LLMs into both peer-review and research processes may influence scholarly fairness, examining the potential risks of using LLMs as reviewers by simulation. This simulation incorporates a research agent, which generates papers and revises, alongside a review agent, which assesses the submissions. Based on the simulation results, we conduct human annotations and identify pronounced misalignment between LLM-based reviews and human judgments: (1) LLM reviewers systematically inflate scores for LLM-authored papers, assigning them markedly higher scores than human-authored ones; (2) LLM reviewers persistently underrate human-authored papers with critical statements (e.g., risk, fairness), even after multiple revisions. Our analysis reveals that these stem from two primary biases in LLM reviewers: a linguistic feature bias favoring LLM-generated writing styles, and an aversion toward critical statements. These results highlight the risks and equity concerns posed to human authors and academic research if LLMs are deployed in the peer review cycle without adequate caution. On the other hand, revisions guided by LLM reviews yield quality gains in both LLM-based and human evaluations, illustrating the potential of the LLMs-as-reviewers for early-stage researchers and enhancing low-quality papers.