Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 2 minor 1 cited by

Approximating the universal thermal climate index using sparse regression with orthogonal polynomials

T0 review · 3 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a sparse regression model built from Legendre polynomials approximates the Universal Thermal Climate Index (UTCI) substantially more accurately than the standard sixth-degree polynomial, at comparable computational co

desk verdict Unverifiable as supplied: the full text is a different paper (Defects4Log), so the UTCI claims rest on an abstract with no numbers and an unsupported sampling assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.11307 v3 pith:JYK64LLV submitted 2025-08-15 physics.ao-ph cs.LGphysics.data-an

Sabin Roman , Ljupco Todorovski , Saso Dzeroski , Gregor Skok This is my paper
classification physics.ao-phcs.LGphysics.data-an
keywords universalthermalclimateindexUTCIpolynomialapproximationsparseregressionorthogonalpolynomialsLegendreL2comfort
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The Universal Thermal Climate Index (UTCI) is a common way to summarize how weather conditions feel to a person, but computing it exactly is complicated, so researchers routinely use a sixth-degree polynomial that is fast yet can be noticeably inaccurate. This paper argues that a sparse combination of orthogonal Legendre polynomials gives a markedly more accurate approximation at essentially the same computational expense, and it sharply cuts the number of large errors. Training on 20% of the reference data and testing on the remaining 80%, the authors report successful generalization that holds under bootstrapping and performance close to the best possible least-squares error. If correct, this offers a drop-in replacement for the standard UTCI polynomial that operational weather and climate applications can adopt without losing speed.

What carries the argument

The key mechanism is sparse regression over an orthogonal Legendre polynomial basis. Orthogonality keeps the least-squares problem well-conditioned and gives the approximation a Fourier-like coefficient structure that is stable and interpretable; sparse regression then retains only a subset of basis functions, trading a little accuracy for much lower complexity and generating a family of models along the accuracy-versus-complexity Pareto front.

What would settle it

Evaluate the fitted Legendre polynomial on an independent data set that concentrates on extreme UTCI conditions—such as very low temperatures with strong wind and humid heat waves—and count how often the error exceeds the threshold the paper uses to define a large error. If this frequency is comparable to that of the standard sixth-degree polynomial on those corner cases, the claim of drastically reduced large-error frequency would not hold outside the training distribution.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that sparse regression with an orthogonal polynomial basis can approximate the UTCI reference model more accurately than the conventional sixth-degree polynomial while retaining comparable computational efficiency and improving numerical stability. Using Legendre polynomials makes the fitted coefficients stable and hierarchical as model size grows, and the sparse fit selects a compact set of basis terms that populate a Pareto front of accuracy versus complexity. The authors report reductions in mean error, mean absolute error, and root mean square error, together with a drastic reduction in the frequency of large errors, and they state that the resulting decomposition be

Load-bearing premise

The 20% of data used for training is representative of the full operational input space of temperature, humidity, wind, and radiation, so that the errors measured on the held-out 80% faithfully reflect the approximation error over the whole domain of actual use.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Operational UTCI calculations can become more accurate at the same runtime, because the sparse polynomial has the same evaluation form as the standard approximation.
  • Users can choose a model from the Pareto front, matching the desired accuracy to available computational resources.
  • Fewer large errors mean fewer extreme misestimates in weather services, climate studies, and heat-stress warnings.
  • Stable hierarchical coefficients make the approximation less vulnerable to numerical instability near the edges of the input domain compared with the standard polynomial.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same sparse-orthogonal-regression recipe could be applied to other environmental indices that currently rely on fixed polynomial fits, such as wet-bulb globe temperature or the heat index, wherever the reference model is expensive to evaluate.
  • The Pareto front implies the method could be tailored for memory-constrained devices like microcontrollers, where a very short polynomial may be sufficient for a target accuracy.
  • The Fourier-like coefficient structure suggests the UTCI response surface is smooth and low-dimensional in the chosen coordinates, which could support physics-based reduced-order models of thermal comfort.
  • A concrete next test is to probe the fitted polynomial on extreme combinations of temperature, humidity, wind, and radiation not well represented in the 20% training sample, to see whether the reduced large-error frequency persists outside the training distribution.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The submission under the title 'Approximating the universal thermal climate index using sparse regression with orthogonal polynomials' consists of an abstract claiming that a sparse-regression Legendre-polynomial approximation of UTCI substantially reduces mean error, mean absolute error, and root mean square error relative to the standard sixth-degree polynomial, drastically reduces the frequency of large errors, retains comparable computational efficiency, generalizes from a 20% training split to an 80% test split, is robust under bootstrapping, and approaches the theoretical L2 optimum. The supplied full text, however, is a completely different manuscript: 'Defects4Log: Benchmarking LLMs for Logging Code Defect Detection and Reasoning' (arXiv:2508.11305v1), a software-engineering paper on logging-code defects. None of the equations, dataset descriptions, coefficient tables, sampling designs, or evaluation protocols needed to support the UTCI claims appear in the submission.

Significance. If the claimed results were supported, the contribution would be practically valuable: an improved polynomial approximation of UTCI with the same evaluation cost and better accuracy, including fewer large errors, would be useful in bioclimatology and operational thermal-comfort applications. The idea of using an orthogonal polynomial basis with sparse regression for numerical stability is also reasonable in principle. However, as submitted, the manuscript provides no way to verify any of these claims. The body of the paper is unrelated to UTCI; there are no derivations, no numerical results, no code, and no data. The abstract alone cannot establish the soundness of the method or the validity of the reported error reductions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Full text (entire manuscript)] The full text is not the paper described in the abstract. It begins with 'Defects4Log: Benchmarking LLMs for Logging Code Defect Detection and Reasoning' and is the arXiv:2508.11305v1 software-engineering manuscript. Sections I, III, V, and VII discuss logging-code defects, not UTCI approximation. Consequently, every quantitative claim in the abstract—reduced ME/MAE/RMSE, reduced large-error frequency, comparable computational efficiency, bootstrap robustness, and near-L2-optimality—is unsupported by any equation, table, figure, or derivation in the submission. This is a load-bearing deficiency: the central result cannot be checked or reproduced from the submitted material.
  2. [Abstract (generalization claim)] The abstract states that training on 20% of the data and testing on the remaining 80% 'highlights successful generalization,' but it provides no information about how the training sample was selected, what input ranges it covers (air temperature, humidity, wind, radiation), or how the test set relates to the operational UTCI domain. If the 20% training sample undersamples extreme but physically relevant conditions, the held-out 80% may not be representative of the full input space, and the reported error reductions could be optimistic. The manuscript needs a precise description of the sampling design and, ideally, a dense-grid or worst-case evaluation over the operational domain to support the generalization claim.
  3. [Abstract (L2 optimality claim)] The phrase 'results near the theoretical optimum in the L2 (least squares) sense' is ambiguous and potentially circular. If the 'theoretical optimum' is the least-squares projection computed on the same training data used to fit the coefficients, then achieving near-optimality is an expected property of the fitting procedure on the training set, not independent validation. The manuscript must define the theoretical optimum precisely and state how it was computed, including whether the comparison was made on held-out data or an independent analytic norm. Without this, the claim does not support generalization.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Metadata and title] The title, authors, affiliations, and subject of the full text do not match the abstract. As submitted, the paper reads as an accidental combination of two different manuscripts; the metadata must be corrected to reflect the actual content.
  2. [Abstract (terminology)] The abstract describes the decomposition as 'Fourier-like expansion' while using Legendre polynomials. Legendre polynomials are orthogonal polynomials but not a Fourier basis; the analogy should be clarified or removed to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No demonstrable circularity: the abstract describes genuine held-out evaluation, and the supplied full text is a different paper so no derivation chain for the UTCI claims can be audited.

full rationale

The UTCI abstract reports a 20%/80% train/test split with bootstrapping ('Training the new approximation models over only 20% of the data, with the testing performed over the remaining 80%... with the results being robust under bootstrapping'). This is a genuine held-out evaluation, which is the opposite of circular: the test errors are not the training objective by construction. The only phrase with potential circularity risk is 'yielding results near the theoretical optimum in the L2 (least squares) sense.' If the theoretical optimum were computed on the same training data used to fit the sparse-regression coefficients, then that particular statement would be a property of the fitting procedure rather than an independent validation. However, the abstract does not specify that the optimum is computed on the training data, and the accuracy claims are anchored to the held-out 80%, so no specific reduction can be exhibited. Per the hard rules, ambiguity is not circularity. Additionally, the supplied full-text manuscript is not the UTCI paper at all; it is arXiv:2508.11305v1 (Defects4Log), a software-engineering logging-defect benchmark. None of the UTCI derivations, coefficient tables, sampling design, or evaluation code is available for inspection, so no self-citation chain or fitted-input-called-prediction step can be identified. The mismatch is a serious verification/correctness concern, but it is not a circularity argument. Consequently, the appropriate finding is no significant circularity, score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities; it is a curve-fitting exercise on an existing index. The free parameters are the fitted polynomial coefficients and the model-complexity choices. The axioms are the standard assumptions of any surrogate-model construction: training data represent the domain, reference labels are trustworthy, and the target function is polynomial-friendly within the chosen basis.

free parameters (2)
  • Polynomial coefficients in the Legendre basis = not reported in the abstract
    The coefficients are the fitted quantities of the sparse regression; every reported error reduction depends on their fitted values.
  • Model complexity and sparsity threshold (degree, number of terms, regularization) = not reported in the abstract
    Models are selected along a Pareto front of accuracy versus complexity, which requires a manual or heuristic choice of the degree and regularization strength; these choices affect the reported accuracy.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Representativeness of the 20% training split over the full UTCI input domain
    The abstract claims generalization from 20% training to 80% testing; this only holds if the training subset spans the realistic ranges of all UTCI inputs.
  • domain assumption Trustworthiness of the reference UTCI values used as training labels
    The approximation is judged against a reference UTCI model; errors in the reference are external to the reported approximation error and are silently assumed to be zero.
  • domain assumption Smoothness of the UTCI function over the operating domain
    The near-L2-optimality claim presupposes that the target function lies close to the span of the chosen orthogonal polynomial basis over the domain of interest.
  • domain assumption The standard sixth-degree polynomial is an appropriate baseline
    Error reductions are reported relative to the standard polynomial; if the baseline implementation is flawed or outdated, the claimed improvement is overstated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Approximating the universal thermal climate index using sparse regression with orthogonal polynomials." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JYK64LLV

@misc{pith2026250811307,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Approximating the universal thermal climate index using sparse regression with orthogonal polynomials},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JYK64LLV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.11307}
}
read the original abstract

The Universal Thermal Climate Index (UTCI) is a measure of thermal comfort that quantifies how humans experience environmental conditions. Due to its robustness and versatility as a bioclimatic indicator, it has been extensively employed across a wide range of studies in bioclimatology and is increasingly used as an operational measure of outdoor thermal comfort. Calculating the UTCI value from the relevant environmental parameters is nominally not straightforward, which is why using a 6th-degree polynomial approximation has become the standard way to calculate UTCI values. Although it is computationally efficient, the error of this polynomial approximation can be substantial. The goal of this study was to develop an improved version of the polynomial approximation - one that retains comparable computational efficiency but is more robust in terms of numerical stability and substantially more accurate, particularly in reducing the frequency of larger errors. This goal was achieved using sparse orthogonal regression, namely sparse regression with an orthogonal polynomial basis, which not only substantially reduces the average errors (i.e., the mean error, the mean absolute error, and the root mean square error) but also drastically reduces the frequency of large errors. By leveraging Legendre polynomial bases, approximation models could be constructed that efficiently populate a Pareto front of accuracy versus complexity and exhibit stable, hierarchical coefficient structures across varying model capacities. Training the new approximation models over only 20% of the data, with the testing performed over the remaining 80%, highlights successful generalization, with the results being robust under bootstrapping. The decomposition effectively approximates the UTCI as a Fourier-like expansion in an orthogonal basis, yielding results near the theoretical optimum in the L2 (least squares) sense.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Limits of spectral learning under noise

    cs.LG 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    Additive noise in sparse spectral regression induces a universal degradation in coefficient overlap governed by a single intrinsic noise scale after feature whitening.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Exploring the effectiveness of llms in automated logging statement generation: An empirical study,

    Y . Li, Y . Huo, Z. Jiang, R. Zhong, P. He, Y . Su, L. C. Briand, and M. R. Lyu, “Exploring the effectiveness of llms in automated logging statement generation: An empirical study,”IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Beyond llms: An exploration of small open-source language models in logging statement generation,

    R. Zhong, Y . Li, G. Yu, W. Gu, J. Kuang, Y . Huo, and M. R. Lyu, “Beyond llms: An exploration of small open-source language models in logging statement generation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.16590 , 2025

    arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    SherLog: error diagnosis by connecting clues from run-time logs,

    D. Yuan, H. Mai, W. Xiong, L. Tan, Y . Zhou, and S. Pasupathy, “SherLog: error diagnosis by connecting clues from run-time logs,” in Proceedings of the fifteenth International Conference on Architectural support for programming languages and operating systems , 2010

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    The Bones of the System: A Case Study of Logging and Telemetry at Microsoft,

    T. Barik, R. DeLine, S. Drucker, and D. Fisher, “The Bones of the System: A Case Study of Logging and Telemetry at Microsoft,” in 2016 IEEE/ACM 38th International Conference on Software Engineering Companion (ICSE-C), 2016

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    A comparative evaluation of log-based process performance analysis techniques,

    F. Milani and F. M. Maggi, “A comparative evaluation of log-based process performance analysis techniques,” in Business Information Systems

    work page

  6. [6]

    An empirical study on leveraging logs for debugging production failures,

    A. R. Chen, “An empirical study on leveraging logs for debugging production failures,” in 2019 IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings (ICSE-Companion) , 2019, pp. 126–128

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Automatic abnormal log detection by analyzing log history for providing debugging insight,

    J. Kim, V . Savchenko, K. Shin, K. Sorokin, H. Jeon, G. Pankratenko, S. Markov, and C.-J. Kim, “Automatic abnormal log detection by analyzing log history for providing debugging insight,” in Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice , ser. ICSE-SEIP ’20, 2020

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    A qualitative study of the benefits and costs of logging from developers’ perspectives,

    H. Li, W. Shang, B. Adams, M. Sayagh, and A. E. Hassan, “A qualitative study of the benefits and costs of logging from developers’ perspectives,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering , 2021

    work page 2021

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    A Survey on Automated Log Analysis for Reliability Engineering,

    S. He, P. He, Z. Chen, T. Yang, Y . Su, and M. R. Lyu, “A Survey on Automated Log Analysis for Reliability Engineering,” ACM Comput. Surv., 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Did we miss something important? studying and exploring variable-aware log abstraction,

    Z. Li, C. Luo, T.-H. Chen, W. Shang, S. He, Q. Lin, and D. Zhang, “Did we miss something important? studying and exploring variable-aware log abstraction,” in 2023 IEEE/ACM 45th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) , 2023, pp. 830–842

    2023

  3. [11]

    Characterizing and Detecting Anti-Patterns in the Logging Code,

    B. Chen and Z. M. Jiang, “Characterizing and Detecting Anti-Patterns in the Logging Code,” in 2017 IEEE/ACM 39th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) , 2017

    2017

  4. [12]

    Studying and detecting log-related issues,

    M. Hassani, W. Shang, E. Shihab, and N. Tsantalis, “Studying and detecting log-related issues,” Empirical Softw. Engg., 2018

    2018

  5. [13]

    DLFinder: Characterizing and Detecting Duplicate Logging Code Smells,

    Z. Li, T.-H. Chen, J. Yang, and W. Shang, “DLFinder: Characterizing and Detecting Duplicate Logging Code Smells,” in 2019 IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) , 2019

    2019

  6. [14]

    HBASE-27099,

    “HBASE-27099,” https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-27099

  7. [15]

    Characterizing logging practices in open- source software,

    D. Yuan, S. Park, and Y . Zhou, “Characterizing logging practices in open- source software,” in 2012 34th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), 2012

    2012

  8. [16]

    On the Temporal Relations between Logging and Code,

    Z. Ding, Y . Tang, Y . Li, H. Li, and W. Shang, “On the Temporal Relations between Logging and Code,” in 2023 IEEE/ACM 45th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) , 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    Are They All Good? Studying Practitioners’ Expectations on the Readability of Log Messages,

    Z. Li, A. R. Chen, X. Hu, X. Xia, T.-H. Chen, and W. Shang, “Are They All Good? Studying Practitioners’ Expectations on the Readability of Log Messages,” 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Perfcodegen: Improving performance of llm generated code with execution feedback,

    Y . Peng, A. D. Gotmare, M. R. Lyu, C. Xiong, S. Savarese, and D. Sahoo, “Perfcodegen: Improving performance of llm generated code with execution feedback,” in 2025 IEEE/ACM Second International Conference on AI Foundation Models and Software Engineering (Forge) , 2025

    2025

  11. [19]

    Reasoning runtime behavior of a program with llm: How far are we?

    J. Chen, Z. Pan, X. Hu, Z. Li, G. Li, and X. Xia, “Reasoning runtime behavior of a program with llm: How far are we?” in Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 47th International Conference on Software Engineering , 2025

    2025

  12. [20]

    Coffe: A code efficiency benchmark for code generation,

    Y . Peng, J. Wan, Y . Li, and X. Ren, “Coffe: A code efficiency benchmark for code generation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.02827 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Code search is all you need? improving code suggestions with code search,

    J. Chen, X. Hu, Z. Li, C. Gao, X. Xia, and D. Lo, “Code search is all you need? improving code suggestions with code search,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering , 2024, pp. 1–13

    2024

  14. [22]

    Assessing and advancing benchmarks for evaluating large language models in software engineering tasks,

    X. Hu, F. Niu, J. Chen, X. Zhou, J. Zhang, J. He, X. Xia, and D. Lo, “Assessing and advancing benchmarks for evaluating large language models in software engineering tasks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.08903 , 2025

    2025

  15. [23]

    Re-ranking step by step: Investigating pre-filtering for re-ranking with large language models,

    B. Nouriinanloo and M. Lamothe, “Re-ranking step by step: Investigating pre-filtering for re-ranking with large language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.18740, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Replicaton package,

    “Replicaton package,” https://github.com/klsc749/Defects4Log, last ac- cessed in August 2025

    2025

  17. [25]

    Logupdater: Automated detection and repair of specific defects in logging statements,

    R. Zhong, Y . Li, J. Kuang, W. Gu, Y . Huo, and M. R. Lyu, “Logupdater: Automated detection and repair of specific defects in logging statements,” ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. , 2025

    2025

  18. [26]

    Learning to Log: Helping Developers Make Informed Logging Decisions,

    J. Zhu, P. He, Q. Fu, H. Zhang, M. R. Lyu, and D. Zhang, “Learning to Log: Helping Developers Make Informed Logging Decisions,” in 2015 IEEE/ACM 37th IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering, 2015

    2015

  19. [27]

    Where Shall We Log? Studying and Suggesting Logging Locations in Code Blocks,

    Z. Li, T.-H. Chen, and W. Shang, “Where Shall We Log? Studying and Suggesting Logging Locations in Code Blocks,” in 2020 35th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE) , 2020

    2020

  20. [28]

    DeepLV: Suggesting Log Levels Using Ordinal Based Neural Networks,

    Z. Li, H. Li, T.-H. Chen, and W. Shang, “DeepLV: Suggesting Log Levels Using Ordinal Based Neural Networks,” in 2021 IEEE/ACM 43rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) , 2021

    2021

  21. [29]

    Benchmarking open-source large language models for log level suggestion,

    Y . W. Heng, Z. Ma, Z. Li, D. J. Kim, and T.-H. Chen, “Benchmarking open-source large language models for log level suggestion,” in 2025 IEEE Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation (ICST), 2025, pp. 314–325

    2025

  22. [30]

    LoGenText: Automatically Generating Logging Texts Using Neural Machine Translation,

    Z. Ding, H. Li, and W. Shang, “LoGenText: Automatically Generating Logging Texts Using Neural Machine Translation,” in 2022 IEEE Inter- national Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER), 2022

    2022

  23. [31]

    LoGenText-Plus: Improving Neural Machine Translation Based Logging Texts Generation with Syntactic Templates,

    Z. Ding, Y . Tang, X. Cheng, H. Li, and W. Shang, “LoGenText-Plus: Improving Neural Machine Translation Based Logging Texts Generation with Syntactic Templates,” ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. , 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    Go static: Contextualized logging statement generation,

    Y . Li, Y . Huo, R. Zhong, Z. Jiang, J. Liu, J. Huang, J. Gu, P. He, and M. R. Lyu, “Go static: Contextualized logging statement generation,” Proc. ACM Softw. Eng. , 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Llmparser: An exploratory study on using large language models for log parsing,

    Z. Ma, A. R. Chen, D. J. Kim, T.-H. Chen, and S. Wang, “Llmparser: An exploratory study on using large language models for log parsing,” ser. ICSE ’24, 2024

    2024

  26. [34]

    Free: Towards more practical log parsing with large language models,

    Y . Xiao, V .-H. Le, and H. Zhang, “Free: Towards more practical log parsing with large language models,” in Proceedings of the 39th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, 2024, pp. 153–165

    2024

  27. [35]

    Autolog: A log sequence synthesis framework for anomaly detection,

    Y . Huo, Y . Li, Y . Su, P. He, Z. Xie, and M. R. Lyu, “Autolog: A log sequence synthesis framework for anomaly detection,” in 2023 38th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), 2023, pp. 497–509

    2023

  28. [36]

    Logsd: Detecting anomalies from system logs through self-supervised learning and frequency-based masking,

    Y . Xie, H. Zhang, and M. A. Babar, “Logsd: Detecting anomalies from system logs through self-supervised learning and frequency-based masking,” Proceedings of the ACM on Software Engineering , no. FSE, pp. 2098–2120, 2024

  29. [37]

    Pathidea: Improving information retrieval-based bug localization by re-constructing execution paths using logs,

    A. R. Chen, T.-H. Chen, and S. Wang, “Pathidea: Improving information retrieval-based bug localization by re-constructing execution paths using logs,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, pp. 2905–2919, 2021

    2021

  30. [38]

    Log4perf: Suggesting logging locations for web-based systems’ perfor- mance monitoring,

    K. Yao, G. B. de Pádua, W. Shang, S. Sporea, A. Toma, and S. Sajedi, “Log4perf: Suggesting logging locations for web-based systems’ perfor- mance monitoring,” in Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/SPEC International Conference on Performance Engineering , 2018, pp. 127–138

    2018

  31. [39]

    Characterizing the natural language descriptions in software logging statements,

    P. He, Z. Chen, S. He, and M. R. Lyu, “Characterizing the natural language descriptions in software logging statements,” in Proceedings of the 33rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, 2018

    2018

  32. [40]

    Drain: An Online Log Parsing Approach with Fixed Depth Tree,

    P. He, J. Zhu, Z. Zheng, and M. R. Lyu, “Drain: An Online Log Parsing Approach with Fixed Depth Tree,” in2017 IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS) , 2017

    2017

  33. [41]

    Self- supervised Log Parsing,

    S. Nedelkoski, J. Bogatinovski, A. Acker, J. Cardoso, and O. Kao, “Self- supervised Log Parsing,” in Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases: Applied Data Science Track , 2021

    2021

  34. [42]

    Execution anomaly detection in distributed systems through unstructured log analysis,

    Q. Fu, J.-G. Lou, Y . Wang, and J. Li, “Execution anomaly detection in distributed systems through unstructured log analysis,” in 2009 Ninth IEEE International Conference on Data Mining , 2009

    2009

  35. [43]

    LogLens: A real-time log analysis system,

    B. Debnath, M. Solaimani, M. A. G. Gulzar, N. Arora, C. Lumezanu, J. Xu, B. Zong, H. Zhang, G. Jiang, and L. Khan, “LogLens: A real-time log analysis system,” in 2018 IEEE 38th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS)

    2018

  36. [44]

    UiLog: Improving log-based fault diagnosis by log analysis

    D.-Q. Zou, H. Qin, and H. Jin, “UiLog: Improving log-based fault diagnosis by log analysis.”

  37. [45]

    Log- based fault localization with unsupervised log segmentation

    W. Dobrowolski, K. Iwach-Kowalski, M. Nikodem, and O. Unold, “Log- based fault localization with unsupervised log segmentation.”

  38. [46]

    Understanding practitioners’ expectations on clear code review comments,

    J. Chen, Z. Li, Q. Mao, X. Hu, K. Liu, and X. Xia, “Understanding practitioners’ expectations on clear code review comments,” Proceedings of the ACM on Software Engineering , no. ISSTA, pp. 1257–1279, 2025

    2025

  39. [47]

    Nlperturbator: Studying the robustness of code llms to natural language variations,

    J. Chen, Z. Li, X. Hu, and X. Xia, “Nlperturbator: Studying the robustness of code llms to natural language variations,” ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology , 2024

    2024

  40. [48]

    Project-specific code summarization with in-context learning,

    S. Yun, S. Lin, X. Gu, and B. Shen, “Project-specific code summarization with in-context learning,” 2024

    2024

  41. [49]

    ProConSuL: Project context for code summarization with LLMs,

    V . Lomshakov, A. Podivilov, S. Savin, O. Baryshnikov, A. Lisevych, and S. Nikolenko, “ProConSuL: Project context for code summarization with LLMs,” in Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: Industry Track , 2024

    2024

  42. [50]

    Code vulnerability repair with large language model using context-aware prompt tuning,

    A. Khan, G. Liu, and X. Gao, “Code vulnerability repair with large language model using context-aware prompt tuning,” 2024

    2024

  43. [51]

    Context- aware code summary generation,

    C.-Y . Su, A. Bansal, Y . Huang, T. J.-J. Li, and C. McMillan, “Context- aware code summary generation,” 2024

    2024

  44. [52]

    Context-aware code generation with synchronous bidirectional decoder,

    X. Zhang, Y . Zhou, G. Yang, T. Han, and T. Chen, “Context-aware code generation with synchronous bidirectional decoder,” 2024

    2024

  45. [53]

    Studying duplicate logging statements and their relationships with code clones,

    Z. Li, T.-H. Chen, J. Yang, and W. Shang, “Studying duplicate logging statements and their relationships with code clones,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering , 2022

    2022

  46. [54]

    Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasoners,

    T. Kojima, S. S. Gu, M. Reid, Y . Matsuo, and Y . Iwasawa, “Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasoners,” 2022

    2022

  47. [55]

    ELLA: Empowering LLMs for Interpretable, Accurate and Informative Legal Advice,

    Y . Hu, K. Luo, and Y . Feng, “ELLA: Empowering LLMs for Interpretable, Accurate and Informative Legal Advice,” 2024

    2024

  48. [56]

    Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models,

    J. Wei, X. Wang, D. Schuurmans, M. Bosma, B. Ichter, F. Xia, E. H. Chi, Q. V . Le, and D. Zhou, “Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models,” in Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , ser. NIPS ’22...

    2022

  49. [57]

    Qwen2.5 Technical Report,

    Qwen, A. Yang, B. Yang, B. Zhang, B. Hui, B. Zheng, B. Yu, C. Li, D. Liu, F. Huang, H. Wei, H. Lin, J. Yang, J. Tu, J. Zhang, J. Yang, J. Yang, J. Zhou, J. Lin, K. Dang, K. Lu, K. Bao, K. Yang, L. Yu, M. Li, M. Xue, P. Zhang, Q. Zhu, R. Men, R. Lin, T. Li, T. Tang, T. Xia, X. ...

    2025

  50. [58]

    DeepSeek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in LLMs via reinforcement learning

    DeepSeek-AI, D. Guo, D. Yang, and et al., “DeepSeek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in LLMs via reinforcement learning.”

  51. [59]

    The llama 3 herd of models

    A. Grattafiori, A. Dubey, A. Jauhri, A. Pandey, and et al., “The llama 3 herd of models.”

  52. [60]

    OpenAI, “GPT-4,” https://openai.com/index/gpt-4/, 2023

    2023

  53. [61]

    Understand: The Software Developer’s Multi-Tool,

    Understand, “Understand: The Software Developer’s Multi-Tool,” https: //scitools.com/, 2024

    2024

  54. [62]

    HBASE-24367,

    “HBASE-24367,” https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-24367

  55. [63]

    AutoMQ-Commit-e6f8ca8,

    “AutoMQ-Commit-e6f8ca8,” https://github.com/AutoMQ/automq/ commit/e6f8ca80cd1ae301caba7b9c3f0b1f2d90a51409

  56. [64]

    HDFS-15045,

    “HDFS-15045,” https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-15045

  57. [65]

    Y ARN-6951,

    “Y ARN-6951,” https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/Y ARN-6951

  58. [66]

    HIVE-20796,

    “HIVE-20796,” https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-20796

  59. [67]

    HDFS-17310,

    “HDFS-17310,” https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-17310

  60. [68]

    HIVE-25794,

    “HIVE-25794,” https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-25794

  61. [69]

    A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales,

    J. Cohen, “A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales,” Educational and Psychological Measurement , 1960

    1960

  62. [70]

    Y ARN-8907,

    “Y ARN-8907,” https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/Y ARN-8907

  63. [71]

    HDFS-15197,

    “HDFS-15197,” https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-15197

  64. [72]

    HDFS-14407,

    “HDFS-14407,” https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14407

  65. [73]

    Camel-Commit-0c1a589,

    “Camel-Commit-0c1a589,” https://github.com/apache/camel/commit/ 0c1a5897fe36866f56549511b73ad8db7c8fe32b

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.