pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.17529 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-19 · 💻 cs.SE

Recognition: unknown

Single-Language Evidence Is Insufficient for Automated Logging: A Multilingual Benchmark and Empirical Study with LLMs

Renyi Zhong , Yichen Li , Yulun Wu , Jinxi Kuang , Yintong Huo , Michael R. Lyu
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 05:15 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.SE
keywords automated loggingmultilingual evaluationlarge language modelslogging statementssoftware maintenancebenchmarkcross-languagerevision history
0
0 comments X

The pith

Automated logging recommendations from large language models do not transfer reliably across programming languages.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Evidence for automated logging has come mostly from Java repositories, raising the question of whether model behaviors observed there apply elsewhere. The authors create MultiLogBench, a dataset covering six languages with tens of thousands of code examples and hundreds of actual logging changes made by developers. They test seven large language models on tasks such as deciding where to insert logs, selecting severity levels, and generating messages. The study finds noticeable differences in how well models perform depending on the language, especially when identifying the right logging framework. Top models keep their relative order, but weaker ones fluctuate more. These differences remain visible when looking at real code changes over time. The work therefore argues that trustworthy statements about logging automation must rest on tests from multiple languages and from maintenance scenarios rather than static snapshots alone.

Core claim

MultiLogBench demonstrates that logging-site localization, framework-anchor matching, severity prediction, and message generation exhibit cross-language variation when evaluated with a unified protocol on 63,965 snapshots and 744 revision cases from six languages. Framework matching proves the most language-sensitive task, loop and nested sites are hardest, and only the strongest models show stable rankings. Patterns observed on snapshot data largely hold on revision data, and input transformations do not produce a broad performance collapse.

What carries the argument

MultiLogBench, a benchmark containing production code snapshots and developer revision histories across six programming languages that enables direct comparison of LLM performance on logging decisions.

If this is right

  • Performance gaps appear most sharply in framework-anchor matching.
  • Certain code structures such as loops and nested callables consistently challenge models more than others.
  • Rankings among the best models stay consistent while lower-ranked models vary with language.
  • Snapshot-based evaluations largely predict outcomes on real maintenance revisions.
  • Transformed code inputs do not trigger a uniform drop in quality across tasks.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Tool builders may need to supply language-specific prompts or fine-tuning for logging assistance beyond the top models.
  • Similar multilingual benchmarks could expose hidden limitations in other software engineering automation tasks.
  • Maintenance history data offers a more realistic test than static repositories for any code-change prediction work.
  • Adding more languages or larger revision sets would clarify whether the observed variations are universal or tied to the current sample.

Load-bearing premise

The six languages and the collected snapshots plus revision cases form a representative sample of logging practices, and the shared evaluation protocol does not favor any language.

What would settle it

Finding that the same seven models produce nearly identical results on a new language or that framework matching shows no language differences would indicate that multilingual testing is unnecessary.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.17529 by Jinxi Kuang, Michael R. Lyu, Renyi Zhong, Yichen Li, Yintong Huo, Yulun Wu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of the benchmark construction pipeline. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Examples for repository-snapshot data and revision-history data. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Language-level performance profiles on the core benchmark. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Cross-language component variation on five representative metrics. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Cross-language model-ranking stability under CCS. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Language deviation from each structure’s mean CCS on the core benchmark. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Cross-language model-ranking stability on revision-history data under CCS. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Language-level repo-macro deltas between the transformed and original historical benchmarks on six representative metrics. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: C++ framework confusion: VLOG(2) is reduced to generic LOG(...) forms. C# input context public virtual bool TryGetLanguageForRequest ( string methodName , object ? serializedRequest , [ NotNullWhen ( true ) ] out string ? language ) { // ground truth Logger . LogDebug (" Using ␣ default ␣ language ␣ handler ␣ for ␣{ methodName }") ; language = LanguageServerConstants . DefaultLanguageName ; return true ; }… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: C# receiver mismatch: static Logger is replaced with instance-level _logger. Finding 8 Framework confusion is a salient failure pattern in the difficult settings highlighted by RQ1 and RQ2. The representative cases show that models can preserve the general reporting intent of a logging statement while still failing to align with project-specific API families and receiver conventions, which helps explain w… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Loop-local placement ambiguity: the iterative update is replaced by a broader operation-level message. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Branch-local transition recovered exactly under an explicit state-change cue. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Nested-callback distractor pattern: a neighboring handler provides a plausible but incorrect target. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_13.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Logging statements are central to debugging, failure diagnosis, and production observability, yet writing them requires developers to decide where to place a logging statement, which API and severity level to use, and what runtime information to expose. Automated logging aims to reduce this burden, but existing evidence remains dominated by Java-centric repository-snapshot dataset. It is therefore unclear whether conclusions about model behavior and model selection generalize across programming-language ecosystems or realistic code evolution. This paper presents MultiLogBench, a multilingual benchmark and empirical study spanning six programming language ecosystems. MultiLogBench contains 63,965 production-code repository-snapshot instances, 744 revision-history cases where developers introduce logging statements during maintenance, and a paired transformed revision-history branch for robustness analysis. Using seven contemporary large language models under a unified protocol, we evaluate logging-site localization, framework-anchor matching, severity prediction, message generation, variable recovery, and cascaded overall quality. Results show clear cross-language variation: framework-anchor matching is the most language-sensitive component, loop and nested-callable sites are the hardest structural contexts, and model rankings are stable only at the top tier. These patterns persist at a coarse level on revision-history data, while transformed inputs do not cause a broad same-direction performance collapse. Overall, MultiLogBench shows that robust claims about automated logging require multilingual evaluation and maintenance-oriented validation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces MultiLogBench, a multilingual benchmark spanning six programming languages with 63,965 repository-snapshot instances and 744 revision-history cases where developers added logging statements. Using seven LLMs under a unified protocol, it evaluates logging-site localization, framework-anchor matching, severity prediction, message generation, variable recovery, and overall quality. The study reports cross-language performance variations (especially in framework-anchor matching and loop/nested-callable sites), stable top-tier model rankings, and that patterns hold coarsely on revision data without broad collapse on transformed inputs. It concludes that single-language evidence is insufficient and that multilingual evaluation plus maintenance-oriented validation are required for robust claims about automated logging.

Significance. If the representativeness and protocol fairness hold, this work provides a valuable large-scale multilingual resource that could shift the field away from Java-centric studies toward more generalizable findings on LLM-based logging automation. The inclusion of real revision-history cases for maintenance validation and the paired transformed branch for robustness testing are notable strengths that address gaps in prior snapshot-only evaluations. The empirical scale and multi-task protocol could serve as a foundation for future benchmarks if the cross-language variations are shown to reflect genuine differences rather than sampling or prompting artifacts.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and Data Collection: The 744 revision-history cases are an order of magnitude smaller than the 63,965 snapshots; without reported statistical power analysis, confidence intervals, or per-language breakdown of these cases, the claim that 'patterns persist at a coarse level on revision-history data' lacks sufficient support and weakens the maintenance-oriented validation argument.
  2. [Methodology] Evaluation Protocol: No details are provided on controls for project domain, logging-framework prevalence across languages, or per-language prompt adaptation/tokenization effects. This is load-bearing for the central claim, as unaddressed biases in the unified protocol could produce the observed cross-language variation (e.g., in framework-anchor matching) as artifacts rather than evidence that single-language studies are insufficient.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract uses 'coarse level' for revision-history persistence without defining the granularity or metrics used; a brief clarification would improve readability.
  2. Consider adding a table summarizing per-language snapshot and revision counts to make the scale and balance of the benchmark immediately visible.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which help clarify the presentation of our multilingual benchmark and its implications. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions planned for the next version of the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and Data Collection: The 744 revision-history cases are an order of magnitude smaller than the 63,965 snapshots; without reported statistical power analysis, confidence intervals, or per-language breakdown of these cases, the claim that 'patterns persist at a coarse level on revision-history data' lacks sufficient support and weakens the maintenance-oriented validation argument.

    Authors: We agree that the smaller size of the revision-history set (744 cases) requires more transparent statistical reporting to support the maintenance-validation claim. In the revised manuscript we will add: (1) a per-language breakdown of the 744 cases, (2) 95% confidence intervals for the key metrics on the revision-history data, and (3) a brief discussion of statistical power limitations. We will also tone down the abstract claim from “patterns persist” to “patterns hold at a coarse level without broad collapse,” while retaining the point that the direction of results is consistent with the snapshot data. These changes strengthen rather than weaken the maintenance-oriented argument by making its evidential basis explicit. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methodology] Evaluation Protocol: No details are provided on controls for project domain, logging-framework prevalence across languages, or per-language prompt adaptation/tokenization effects. This is load-bearing for the central claim, as unaddressed biases in the unified protocol could produce the observed cross-language variation (e.g., in framework-anchor matching) as artifacts rather than evidence that single-language studies are insufficient.

    Authors: We accept that the current manuscript under-describes protocol controls. In the revised Methodology section we will add: (1) explicit criteria used to select repositories so that application domains (web services, utilities, data-processing tools) are represented across languages, (2) the observed prevalence of logging frameworks (e.g., Log4j vs. SLF4J in Java, logging vs. loguru in Python) within each language’s snapshot set, and (3) the exact prompt templates with the minimal language-specific adaptations (syntax only) while keeping task instructions identical. We will also note tokenization differences as an inherent model factor and add a short “Protocol Fairness and Limitations” subsection that discusses why the consistent ranking of top-tier models across languages makes pure artifact explanations less likely. These additions directly address the concern that cross-language variation might be protocol-induced. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: empirical benchmark with independent data collection

full rationale

The paper is an empirical study that collects new multilingual data (63,965 repository snapshots and 744 revision cases across six languages) and evaluates seven LLMs under a unified protocol on tasks like logging-site localization and severity prediction. No equations, fitted parameters, or derivations are present; conclusions follow directly from observed cross-language variations in the collected data. Representativeness and protocol fairness are external-validity assumptions, not reductions of any claim to its own inputs by construction. No self-citations, ansatzes, or renamings create load-bearing circular steps.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the representativeness of the multilingual dataset and the assumption that observed performance differences stem from language ecosystems rather than evaluation artifacts or selection effects.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The six selected programming languages and their production code instances adequately represent diverse logging practices across ecosystems.
    Invoked to support generalization from the benchmark results to broader claims about automated logging.
  • domain assumption The defined tasks (localization, severity prediction, message generation, etc.) and unified protocol capture the essential challenges of automated logging without language-specific bias.
    Central to interpreting the cross-language variation findings.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5560 in / 1332 out tokens · 40171 ms · 2026-05-10T05:15:15.291638+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Roozbeh Aghili, Heng Li, and Foutse Khomh. 2025. Protecting Privacy in Software Logs: What Should Be Anonymized?Proc. ACM Softw. Eng.2, FSE, Article FSE060 (June 2025), 22 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3715779

    work page doi:10.1145/3715779 2025

  2. [2]

    Anthropic. 2026. Introducing Claude Sonnet 4.6. Anthropic News. https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-sonnet-4-6 Accessed 2026-04-10

    2026

  3. [3]

    Han Anu, Jie Chen, Wenchang Shi, Jianwei Hou, Bin Liang, and Bo Qin. 2019. An Approach to Recommendation of Verbosity Log Levels Based on Logging Intention. In2019 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME). IEEE, 125–134. https: //doi.org/10.1109/icsme.2019.00022

    work page doi:10.1109/icsme.2019.00022 2019

  4. [4]

    Max Brunsfeld and tree-sitter contributors. 2026. tree-sitter: An Incremental Parsing System for Programming Tools. https://github.com/tree- sitter/tree-sitter. GitHub repository. Accessed April 17, 2026

    2026

  5. [5]

    Jeanderson Candido, Jan Haesen, Mauricio Aniche, and Arie van Deursen. 2021. An Exploratory Study of Log Placement Recommendation in an Enterprise System. In2021 IEEE/ACM 18th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR). IEEE, 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1109/ msr52588.2021.00027

    work page arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    Boyuan Chen and Zhen Ming Jiang. 2017. Characterizing and detecting anti-patterns in the logging code. In2017 IEEE/ACM 39th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). IEEE, 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1109/icse.2017.15

    work page doi:10.1109/icse.2017.15 2017

  7. [7]

    Boyuan Chen and Zhen Ming Jiang. 2017. Characterizing logging practices in Java-based open source software projects - a replication study in Apache Software Foundation.Empirical Software Engineering22, 1 (2017), 330–374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-016-9429-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s10664-016-9429-5 2017

  8. [8]

    Boyuan Chen and Zhen Ming Jiang. 2019. Extracting and studying the Logging-Code-Issue-Introducing changes in Java-based large-scale open source software systems.Empirical Software Engineering24, 4 (2019), 2285–2322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-019-09690-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s10664-019-09690-0 2019

  9. [9]

    Boyuan Chen and Zhen Ming Jiang. 2020. Studying the use of Java logging utilities in the wild. InProceedings of the ACM/IEEE 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering. ACM, 397–408. https://doi.org/10.1145/3377811.3380408

    work page doi:10.1145/3377811.3380408 2020

  10. [10]

    Ozren Dabic, Emad Aghajani, and Gabriele Bavota. 2021. Sampling projects in github for MSR studies. In2021 IEEE/ACM 18th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR). IEEE, 560–564. https://doi.org/10.1109/MSR52588.2021.00074

    work page doi:10.1109/msr52588.2021.00074 2021

  11. [11]

    DeepSeek-AI. 2025. DeepSeek-V3.2: Pushing the Frontier of Open Large Language Models. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2512.02556 arXiv:2512.02556 [cs.CL]

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.02556 2025

  12. [12]

    Zishuo Ding, Heng Li, and Weiyi Shang. 2022. LoGenText: Automatically Generating Logging Texts Using Neural Machine Translation. In2022 IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER). IEEE, 349–360. https://doi.org/10.1109/saner53432.2022.00051

    work page doi:10.1109/saner53432.2022.00051 2022

  13. [13]

    Zishuo Ding, Yiming Tang, Xiaoyu Cheng, Heng Li, and Weiyi Shang. 2023. LoGenText-Plus: Improving Neural Machine Translation Based Logging Texts Generation with Syntactic Templates.ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology33, 2 (2023), 1–45. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3624740

    work page doi:10.1145/3624740 2023

  14. [14]

    Zishuo Ding, Yiming Tang, Yang Li, Heng Li, and Weiyi Shang. 2023. On the temporal relations between logging and code. In2023 IEEE/ACM 45th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). IEEE, 843–854. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE48619.2023.00079

    work page doi:10.1109/icse48619.2023.00079 2023

  15. [15]

    Shengcheng Duan, Yihua Xu, Sheng Zhang, Shen Wang, and Yue Duan. 2025. PDLogger: Automated Logging Framework for Practical Software Development.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.19951(2025). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.19951

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.19951 2025

  16. [16]

    Patrick Loic Foalem, Foutse Khomh, and Heng Li. 2024. Studying logging practice in machine learning-based applications.Information and Software Technology170 (2024), 107450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2024.107450

    work page doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2024.107450 2024

  17. [17]

    Qiang Fu, Jieming Zhu, Wenlu Hu, Jian-Guang Lou, Rui Ding, Qingwei Lin, Dongmei Zhang, and Tao Xie. 2014. Where do developers log? an empirical study on logging practices in industry. InCompanion Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering. ACM, 24–33. https://doi.org/10.1145/2591062.2591175

    work page doi:10.1145/2591062.2591175 2014

  18. [18]

    Sina Gholamian and Paul A. S. Ward. 2020. Logging statements’ prediction based on source code clones. InProceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC ’20). ACM, 82–91. https://doi.org/10.1145/3341105.3373845

    work page doi:10.1145/3341105.3373845 2020

  19. [19]

    GitHub. 2025. Octoverse: A New Developer Joins GitHub Every Second as AI Leads TypeScript to #1. https://github.blog/news-insights/octoverse/ octoverse-a-new-developer-joins-github-every-second-as-ai-leads-typescript-to-1/. GitHub Blog. Published October 28, 2025. Accessed April 3, 2026

    2025

  20. [20]

    GLM-5-Team, Aohan Zeng, et al . 2026. GLM-5: from Vibe Coding to Agentic Engineering. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2602.15763 arXiv:2602.15763 [cs.LG]

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.15763 2026

  21. [21]

    Wenwei Gu, Renyi Zhong, Guangba Yu, Xinying Sun, Jinyang Liu, Yintong Huo, Zhuangbin Chen, Jianping Zhang, Jiazhen Gu, Yongqiang Yang, and Michael R. Lyu. 2025. KPIRoot+: An Efficient Integrated Framework for Anomaly Detection and Root Cause Analysis in Large-Scale Cloud Systems.Empirical Software Engineering31, 2 (2025), 28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1066...

    work page doi:10.1007/s10664-025-10769-0 2025

  22. [22]

    Mehran Hassani, Weiyi Shang, Emad Shihab, and Nikolaos Tsantalis. 2018. Studying and detecting log-related issues.Empirical Software Engineering 23, 6 (2018), 3248–3280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-018-9603-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s10664-018-9603-z 2018

  23. [23]

    Shilin He, Pinjia He, Zhuangbin Chen, Tianyi Yang, Yuxin Su, and Michael R Lyu. 2021. A survey on automated log analysis for reliability engineering. ACM computing surveys (CSUR)54, 6 (2021), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1145/3460345

    work page doi:10.1145/3460345 2021

  24. [24]

    Zhihan Jiang, Junjie Huang, Guangba Yu, Zhuangbin Chen, Yichen Li, Renyi Zhong, Cong Feng, Yongqiang Yang, Zengyin Yang, and Michael Lyu

  25. [25]

    InProceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on the Foundations of Software Engineering

    L4: Diagnosing large-scale llm training failures via automated log analysis. InProceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on the Foundations of Software Engineering. 51–63. https://doi.org/10.1145/3696630.3728531

    work page doi:10.1145/3696630.3728531

  26. [26]

    Suhas Kabinna, Cor-Paul Bezemer, Weiyi Shang, and Ahmed E. Hassan. 2016. Logging library migrations: a case study for the Apache Software Foundation projects. InProceedings of the 13th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories. ACM, 154–164. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 2901739.2901769

    work page arXiv 2016

  27. [27]

    Suhas Kabinna, Cor-Paul Bezemer, Weiyi Shang, and Ahmed E. Hassan. 2018. Examining the stability of logging statements.Empirical Software Engineering23, 1 (2018), 290–333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-017-9518-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s10664-017-9518-0 2018

  28. [28]

    Taeyoung Kim, Suntae Kim, Sooyong Park, and YoungBeom Park. 2019. Automatic recommendation to appropriate log levels.Software: Practice and Experience50, 3 (2019), 189–209. https://doi.org/10.1002/spe.2771

    work page doi:10.1002/spe.2771 2019

  29. [29]

    Kimi Team, Tongtong Bai, et al. 2026. Kimi K2.5: Visual Agentic Intelligence. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2602.02276 arXiv:2602.02276 [cs.CL]

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.02276 2026

  30. [30]

    Heng Li, Weiyi Shang, Bram Adams, Mohammed Sayagh, and Ahmed E. Hassan. 2021. A Qualitative Study of the Benefits and Costs of Logging From Developers’ Perspectives.IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering47, 12 (2021), 2858–2873. https://doi.org/10.1109/tse.2020.2970422

    work page doi:10.1109/tse.2020.2970422 2021

  31. [31]

    Heng Li, Weiyi Shang, and Ahmed E. Hassan. 2016. Which log level should developers choose for a new logging statement?Empirical Software Engineering22, 4 (2016), 1684–1716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-016-9456-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s10664-016-9456-2 2016

  32. [32]

    Heng Li, Haoxiang Zhang, Shaowei Wang, and Ahmed E. Hassan. 2022. Studying the Practices of Logging Exception Stack Traces in Open-Source Software Projects.IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering48, 12 (2022), 4907–4924. https://doi.org/10.1109/tse.2021.3129688

    work page doi:10.1109/tse.2021.3129688 2022

  33. [33]

    Min Li, Gou Tan, Pengfei Chen, and Chuanfu Zhang. 2026. LogGen: Integrating traditional model and LLM with code analysis for precise log generation.Journal of Systems and Software236 (2026), 112816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2026.112816

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jss.2026.112816 2026

  34. [34]

    Briand, and Michael R

    Yichen Li, Yintong Huo, Zhihan Jiang, Renyi Zhong, Pinjia He, Yuxin Su, Lionel C. Briand, and Michael R. Lyu. 2024. Exploring the Effectiveness of LLMs in Automated Logging Statement Generation: An Empirical Study.IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering50, 12 (2024), 3188–3207. https://doi.org/10.1109/tse.2024.3475375

    work page doi:10.1109/tse.2024.3475375 2024

  35. [35]

    Yichen Li, Yintong Huo, Renyi Zhong, Zhihan Jiang, Jinyang Liu, Junjie Huang, Jiazhen Gu, Pinjia He, and Michael R. Lyu. 2024. Go Static: Contextualized Logging Statement Generation.Proceedings of the ACM on Software Engineering1, FSE (2024), 609–630. https://doi.org/10.1145/3643754

    work page doi:10.1145/3643754 2024

  36. [36]

    Yichen Li, Jinyang Liu, Junsong Pu, Zhihan Jiang, Zhuangbin Chen, Xiao He, Tieying Zhang, Jianjun Chen, Yi Li, Rui Shi, and Michael R. Lyu. 2025. Automated Proactive Logging Quality Improvement for Large-Scale Codebases. In2025 40th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE). 3426–3437. https://doi.org/10.1109/ASE63991.2025.00283

    work page doi:10.1109/ase63991.2025.00283 2025

  37. [37]

    Zhenhao Li, An Ran Chen, Xing Hu, Xin Xia, Tse-Hsun Chen, and Weiyi Shang. 2023. Are they all good? studying practitioners’ expectations on the readability of log messages. In2023 38th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE). IEEE, 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1109/ASE56229.2023.00136

    work page doi:10.1109/ase56229.2023.00136 2023

  38. [38]

    Zhenhao Li, Tse-Hsun Chen, Jinqiu Yang, and Weiyi Shang. 2019. DLFinder: Characterizing and Detecting Duplicate Logging Code Smells. In2019 IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). IEEE, 152–163. https://doi.org/10.1109/icse.2019.00032

    work page doi:10.1109/icse.2019.00032 2019

  39. [39]

    Zhenhao Li, Tse-Hsun Chen, Jinqiu Yang, and Weiyi Shang. 2021. Studying duplicate logging statements and their relationships with code clones. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering48, 7 (2021), 2476–2494. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2021.3060918

    work page doi:10.1109/tse.2021.3060918 2021

  40. [40]

    Zhenhao Li, Tse-Hsun (Peter) Chen, and Weiyi Shang. 2020. Where shall we log?: studying and suggesting logging locations in code blocks. InProceedings of the 35th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE). ACM, Virtual Event Australia. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3324884.3416636

    work page doi:10.1145/3324884.3416636 2020

  41. [41]

    Zhenhao Li, Heng Li, Tse-Hsun Chen, and Weiyi Shang. 2021. Deeplv: Suggesting log levels using ordinal based neural networks. In2021 IEEE/ACM 43rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). IEEE, 1461–1472. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE43902.2021.00131

    work page doi:10.1109/icse43902.2021.00131 2021

  42. [42]

    Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. ROUGE: A Package for Automatic Evaluation of Summaries. InText Summarization Branches Out. Association for Computational Linguistics, Barcelona, Spain, 74–81. https://aclanthology.org/W04-1013/

    2004

  43. [43]

    Jiahao Liu, Jun Zeng, Xiang Wang, Kaihang Ji, and Zhenkai Liang. 2022. TeLL: log level suggestions via modeling multi-level code block information. InProceedings of the 31st ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA ’22). ACM, 27–38. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3533767.3534379

    work page doi:10.1145/3533767.3534379 2022

  44. [44]

    Hassan, and Shanping Li

    Zhongxin Liu, Xin Xia, David Lo, Zhenchang Xing, Ahmed E. Hassan, and Shanping Li. 2019. Which Variables Should I Log?IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (TSE)(2019), 1–1. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2019.2941943

    work page doi:10.1109/tse.2019.2941943 2019

  45. [45]

    Antonio Mastropaolo, Valentina Ferrari, Luca Pascarella, and Gabriele Bavota. 2024. Log statements generation via deep learning: Widening the support provided to developers.Journal of Systems and Software210 (2024), 111947. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2023.111947

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jss.2023.111947 2024

  46. [46]

    Antonio Mastropaolo, Luca Pascarella, and Gabriele Bavota. 2022. Using deep learning to generate complete log statements. InProceedings of the 44th International Conference on Software Engineering(Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania)(ICSE ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2279–2290. https://doi.org/10.1145/3510003.3511561 Manuscript submi...

    work page doi:10.1145/3510003.3511561 2022

  47. [47]

    OpenAI. 2025. Advanced usage: Reproducible outputs. https://platform.openai.com/docs/advanced-usage/reproducible-outputs. Accessed: 2025-11-30

    2025

  48. [48]

    OpenAI. 2026. Introducing GPT-5.4. OpenAI Product Release. https://openai.com/index/introducing-gpt-5-4/ Accessed 2026-04-10

    2026

  49. [49]

    Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. InProceedings of the 40th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL). 311–318. https://doi.org/10.3115/1073083.1073135

    work page doi:10.3115/1073083.1073135 2002

  50. [50]

    Qwen Team. 2025. Qwen3 Technical Report. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2505.09388 arXiv:2505.09388 [cs.CL] Official citation recommended by the Qwen3-Coder-480B-A35B-Instruct model card

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.09388 2025

  51. [51]

    The P robabilistic R elevance F ramework: BM25 and B eyond

    Stephen Robertson and Hugo Zaragoza. 2009.The probabilistic relevance framework: BM25 and beyond. Vol. 4. Now Publishers Inc. https: //doi.org/10.1561/1500000019

    work page doi:10.1561/1500000019 2009

  52. [52]

    Guoping Rong, Shenghui Gu, He Zhang, Dong Shao, and Wanggen Liu. 2018. How Is Logging Practice Implemented in Open Source Software Projects? A Preliminary Exploration. In2018 25th Australasian Software Engineering Conference (ASWEC). IEEE, 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1109/ aswec.2018.00031

    work page arXiv 2018

  53. [53]

    Guoping Rong, Yangchen Xu, Shenghui Gu, He Zhang, and Dong Shao. 2020. Can You Capture Information As You Intend To? A Case Study on Logging Practice in Industry. In2020 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME). IEEE, 12–22. https: //doi.org/10.1109/icsme46990.2020.00012

    work page doi:10.1109/icsme46990.2020.00012 2020

  54. [54]

    June Sallou, Thomas Durieux, and Annibale Panichella. 2024. Breaking the silence: the threats of using llms in software engineering. InProceedings of the 2024 ACM/IEEE 44th International Conference on Software Engineering: New Ideas and Emerging Results. 102–106. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3639476.3639764

    work page arXiv 2024

  55. [55]

    Weiyi Shang, Meiyappan Nagappan, and Ahmed E. Hassan. 2015. Studying the relationship between logging characteristics and the code quality of platform software.Empirical Software Engineering20, 1 (2015), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-013-9274-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s10664-013-9274-8 2015

  56. [56]

    Hassan, and Zhen Ming Jiang

    Weiyi Shang, Meiyappan Nagappan, Ahmed E. Hassan, and Zhen Ming Jiang. 2014. Understanding Log Lines Using Development Knowledge. In 2014 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution. IEEE, 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1109/icsme.2014.24

    work page doi:10.1109/icsme.2014.24 2014

  57. [57]

    Stack Overflow. 2024. 2024 Stack Overflow Developer Survey: Technology. https://survey.stackoverflow.co/2024/technology. Accessed April 3, 2026

    2024

  58. [58]

    Boyin Tan, Junjielong Xu, Zhouruixing Zhu, and Pinjia He. 2025. AL-Bench: A Benchmark for Automatic Logging. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV. 2502.03160

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv 2025

  59. [59]

    Yiming Tang, Allan Spektor, Raffi Khatchadourian, and Mehdi Bagherzadeh. 2022. Automated evolution of feature logging statement levels using git histories and degree of interest.Science of Computer Programming214 (2022), 102724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scico.2021.102724

    work page doi:10.1016/j.scico.2021.102724 2022

  60. [60]

    The Gemini Team. 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro: A Smarter Model for Your Most Complex Tasks. Google Blog. https://blog.google/innovation-and- ai/models-and-research/gemini-models/gemini-3-1-pro/ Accessed 2026-04-10

    2026

  61. [61]

    Xin Wang, Yang Feng, Jiaoxiao Qian, Yang Zhang, Zhenhao Li, and Zishuo Ding. 2026. Logging Like Humans for LLMs: Rethinking Logging via Execution and Runtime Feedback. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2603.29122 arXiv:2603.29122 [cs.SE]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.29122 2026

  62. [62]

    Xin Wang, Zhenhao Li, and Zishuo Ding. 2025. Defects4Log: Benchmarking LLMs for Logging Code Defect Detection and Reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.11305(2025). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2508.11305

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.11305 2025

  63. [63]

    Yi Wu, Nan Jiang, Hung Viet Pham, Thibaud Lutellier, Jordan Davis, Lin Tan, Petr Babkin, and Sameena Shah. 2023. How effective are neural networks for fixing security vulnerabilities. InProceedings of the 32nd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis. 1282–1294. https://doi.org/10.1145/3597926.3598135

    work page doi:10.1145/3597926.3598135 2023

  64. [64]

    Chunqiu Steven Xia, Yuxiang Wei, and Lingming Zhang. 2023. Automated program repair in the era of large pre-trained language models. In2023 IEEE/ACM 45th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). IEEE, 1482–1494. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE48619.2023.00129

    work page doi:10.1109/icse48619.2023.00129 2023

  65. [65]

    Xiaoyuan Xie, Zhipeng Cai, Songqiang Chen, and Jifeng Xuan. 2024. FastLog: An End-to-End Method to Efficiently Generate and Insert Logging Statements. InProceedings of the 33rd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA ’24). ACM, 26–37. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3650212.3652107

    work page doi:10.1145/3650212.3652107 2024

  66. [66]

    Junjielong Xu, Ziang Cui, Yuan Zhao, Xu Zhang, Shilin He, Pinjia He, Liqun Li, Yu Kang, Qingwei Lin, Yingnong Dang, Saravan Rajmohan, and Dongmei Zhang. 2024. UniLog: Automatic Logging via LLM and In-Context Learning. InProceedings of the IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE ’24). ACM, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3597503.3623326

    work page doi:10.1145/3597503.3623326 2024

  67. [67]

    Yi Zeng, Jinfu Chen, Weiyi Shang, and Tse-Hsun Chen. 2019. Studying the characteristics of logging practices in mobile apps: a case study on F-Droid.Empirical Software Engineering24, 6 (2019), 3394–3434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-019-09687-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s10664-019-09687-9 2019

  68. [68]

    Haonan Zhang, Yiming Tang, Maxime Lamothe, Heng Li, and Weiyi Shang. 2022. Studying Logging Practice in Test Code.Empirical Software Engineering27, 4 (2022), 83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-022-10139-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s10664-022-10139-0 2022

  69. [69]

    Xu Zhao, Kirk Rodrigues, Yu Luo, Michael Stumm, Ding Yuan, and Yuanyuan Zhou. 2017. Log20: Fully Automated Optimal Placement of Log Printing Statements under Specified Overhead Threshold. InProceedings of the 26th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles (SOSP). ACM, Shanghai China, 565–581. https://doi.org/10.1145/3132747.3132778

    work page doi:10.1145/3132747.3132778 2017

  70. [70]

    Chen Zhi, Jianwei Yin, Shuiguang Deng, Maoxin Ye, Min Fu, and Tao Xie. 2019. An Exploratory Study of Logging Configuration Practice in Java. In 2019 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME). IEEE, 459–469. https://doi.org/10.1109/icsme.2019.00079

    work page doi:10.1109/icsme.2019.00079 2019

  71. [71]

    Chen Zhi, Jianwei Yin, Junxiao Han, and Shuiguang Deng. 2020. A Preliminary Study on Sensitive Information Exposure Through Logging. In2020 27th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC). IEEE, 470–474. https://doi.org/10.1109/apsec51365.2020.00058 Manuscript submitted to ACM 36 Renyi Zhong, Yichen Li, Yulun Wu, Jinxi Kuang, Yintong Huo, and Mi...

    work page doi:10.1109/apsec51365.2020.00058 2020

  72. [72]

    Renyi Zhong, Yintong Huo, Wenwei Gu, Yichen Li, and Michael R. Lyu. 2025. End-to-End Automated Logging via Multi-Agent Framework. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2511.18528 arXiv:2511.18528 [cs.SE]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.18528 2025

  73. [73]

    Renyi Zhong, Yichen Li, Jinxi Kuang, Wenwei Gu, Yintong Huo, and Michael R. Lyu. 2025. LogUpdater: Automated Detection and Repair of Specific Defects in Logging Statements.ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol.35, 1, Article 16 (Dec. 2025), 31 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3731754

    work page doi:10.1145/3731754 2025

  74. [74]

    Renyi Zhong, Yichen Li, Guangba Yu, Wenwei Gu, Jinxi Kuang, Yintong Huo, and Michael R. Lyu. 2025. Larger Is Not Always Better: Exploring Small Open-source Language Models in Logging Statement Generation.ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology(2025). https://doi.org/10.1145/3773287

    work page doi:10.1145/3773287 2025

  75. [75]

    Rui Zhou, Mohammad Hamdaqa, Haipeng Cai, and Abdelwahab Hamou-Lhadj. 2020. MobiLogLeak: A Preliminary Study on Data Leakage Caused by Poor Logging Practices. In2020 IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER). IEEE, 577–581. https://doi.org/10.1109/saner48275.2020.9054831

    work page doi:10.1109/saner48275.2020.9054831 2020

  76. [76]

    Lyu, and Dongmei Zhang

    Jieming Zhu, Pinjia He, Qiang Fu, Hongyu Zhang, Michael R. Lyu, and Dongmei Zhang. 2015. Learning to Log: Helping Developers Make Informed Logging Decisions. In2015 IEEE/ACM 37th IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering. IEEE, 415–425. https://doi.org/10.1109/icse.2015.60 Manuscript submitted to ACM

    work page doi:10.1109/icse.2015.60 2015