Eray Tüzün | arXiv Science

arXiv2026

ATIBA: Grounded Integrity and Quality Checking for Research Papers

Checking a manuscript's reference integrity, its compliance with a target venue's specific submission rules, and its adherence to community reporting standards is manual, repetitive, and different for every venue so in practice it is done inconsistently or skipped. We present ATIBA, a tool that runs five grounded integrity and quality checks on a manuscript: a reference-integrity check that verifies each citation against bibliographic sources and flags retracted or unfindable references; a venue/track compliance check that derives submission criteria directly from a venue's own call-for-papers page and evaluates the manuscript against them, each verdict anchored to a verbatim quote from that page; an empirical-standards compliance check against the ACM SIGSOFT Empirical Standards, with a hallucination defence that discards any evidence quote it cannot locate verbatim in the manuscript; a multi-mode AI review (venue-specific, formal, and page-anchored annotation) powered by GPT-5.4 through Azure OpenAI; and a citation-suggestion feature that proposes candidate references for a manuscript and verifies each against bibliographic sources before it is shown to the user. All five checks are designed around the same principle: an LLM is only trusted to judge, never to invent the evidence it judges against. We evaluated ATIBA through a moderated user study with 13 non-author participants. Agreement across the six survey items ranged from 69% to 92%, with a mean of 85%, providing initial evidence of positive perceived usefulness across the evaluated workflows. These findings establish perceived usefulness; objective accuracy remains to be measured.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Fine-Tuning Large Language Models to Classify Pull Request-Issue Alignments: Going Beyond Prompting

Context: Accurate alignment between pull requests (PRs) and corresponding issues is crucial for efficient software development and maintaining code quality, as misalignments can reduce traceability, hinder defect localization, and decrease maintainability. Objective: This study aims to improve automated PR-issue alignment classification by leveraging fine-tuned large language models (LLMs) across multiple alignment categories, and conducts interpretability analysis to investigate the effects of PR-issue fields on the predictions of fine-tuned LLMs. Method: Our methodology consists of dataset preparation, LLM fine-tuning, and interpretability analysis. We first extended an existing dataset and applied data augmentation to address class imbalance. GPT-4o was then fine-tuned via instruction tuning, and open-source LLMs including CodeLlama-7B, CodeQwen1.5-7B, StableCode-3B, CodeGemma-7B, and Deepseek-Coder-6.7B were fine-tuned using classification-specific heads. Interpretability analysis using Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) was conducted to examine the influence of PR-issue fields on predictions for the best-performing open-source LLM. Results: Fine-tuned LLMs outperformed baseline models, achieving average improvements of 6.15% in accuracy and F1-micro, 14.69% in F1-macro, and 6.15% in recall. CodeLlama-7B emerged as the best-performing fine-tuned LLM overall, while interpretability analysis revealed that code diffs together with issue body and PR body contents exert the greatest influence on predictions. Conclusions: Fine-tuning substantially enhances PR-issue alignment classification, improving both accuracy and efficiency. Interpretability analysis provides actionable insights into the dataset features driving alignment decisions, deepening understanding of how LLMs reason over software artifacts.

cs.SE↗