Large language models (LLMs) are now the default cognitive core of embodied household agents, yet the plans they emit are rarely checked against a grounded model of the environment before execution, and the task-success they report is often measured on benchmarks so saturated that no method can be separated from another. We present SAGE (Symbolic Action-Gating and Editing), a single-LLM planner built from two lightweight mechanisms: a domain-agnostic symbolic gate (~250 lines of Python, zero tokens, $O(|\pi|)$) that blocks precondition-violating actions with typed reasons as a runtime safety monitor, and a local edit that regenerates only the failed sub-goal's suffix, keeping completed and untouched work intact; a hybrid seed+live memory store supports cold-start coverage. We evaluate under a leak-free protocol (leave-one-out retrieval) over five open-weight models and a 75-task AI2-THOR benchmark. On the standard benchmark goal-completeness saturates (52% of instances trivially solved) and SAGE ties strong hierarchical baselines. On a harder, method-agnostic multi-goal composition, SAGE's completeness lead re-emerges large (+0.06 to +0.23 across four models). Under injected mid-execution failures, SAGE recovers as reliably as whole-plan replanners at 2.4-3.3x fewer LLM calls. As a verify-before-execute gate, the symbolic monitor blocks unsafe actions before actuation and raises simulator-reported step-success for every planner tested (up to +0.11), a signal the verifier never sees (non-circular). Because the gate calls no model (0.008 ms/plan), it is a safety layer that runs essentially free on the edge: SAGE planning reproduces its quality on a Jetson AGX Orin, where small-model verification helps most. We release the benchmark, the leak-free protocol, the recovery and safety-gate harnesses, and a verifier-portability study (auto-induced on ALFWorld, 0.89 held-out).
GAOKAO-Bench is introduced, an intuitive benchmark that employs questions from the Chinese GAOKAO examination as test samples, including both subjective and objective questions that contribute a robust evaluation benchmark for future large language models and offers valuable insights into the advantages and limitations...
Xiaotian Zhang, Chun-yan Li, Yi Zong et al.· arXiv.org· 216 citations· ⚡17
The results are packaged in the Greenfield Startup Model (GSM), which explains the priority of startups to release the product as quickly as possible, and the need to shorten time-to-market, by speeding up the development through low-precision engineering activities.
Carmine Giardino, Nicolò Paternoster, M. Unterkalmsteiner et al.· IEEE Transactions on Softwar...· 178 citations· ⚡14
Software startup companies develop innovative, software-intensive products within limited timeframes and with few resources, searching for sustainable and scalable business models.
M. Unterkalmsteiner, P. Abrahamsson, Xiaofeng Wang et al.· e-Informatica Software Engin...· 157 citations· ⚡17
This work investigates the possibilities of using LLMs in a resume screening setting via a document retrieval framework that simulates job candidate selection and finds that the MTEs are biased, significantly favoring White-associated names in 85% of cases and female-associated names in only 11.1% of cases.
This study conducts a case survey study based on the secondary data of the major pivots happened in 49 software startups, and demonstrates that customer need pivot is the most common among all pivot types.
Sohaib Shahid Bajwa, Xiaofeng Wang, Anh Nguyen-Duc et al.· Empirical Software Engineeri...· 127 citations· ⚡15
The comparison of adopter and non-adopter sample reveals three potential adoption inhibitor, security, data privacy, and portability, which underlines the importance of the technical and security perspectives for research investigating the adoption of technology.
Nattakarn Phaphoom, Xiaofeng Wang, S. Samuel et al.· Journal of Systems and Softw...· 111 citations· ⚡8