arXiv:2608.30532v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Existing approaches for synthesizing Partial Differential Equation (PDE) solvers predominantly rely on autoregressive models, yet their global left-to-...
The paper investigates how Large Language Models (LLMs) handle bug fixing compared to human-written patches by analyzing about 3,000 Codeforces submissions. It finds that LLMs often modify more lines than necessary and sometimes produce entirely new solutions, and that they solve more problems correctly when generating solutions from scratch rather than patching existing code. The study highlights implications for AI‑assisted programming tools, suggesting a shift toward incremental problem‑solving strategies.
The paper investigates how large language models (LLMs) handle bug fixing versus problem solving in competitive programming. Using a dataset of ~3,000 Codeforces submissions and their human fixes, the authors compare LLM-generated patches to human patches and assess whether LLMs prefer to modify buggy code or generate new solutions. Results show that LLMs often alter more lines than necessary and sometimes produce entirely new solutions, performing better when allowed to generate solutions from scratch rather than patching existing code.
DCGC is a Masked Diffusion Model framework that performs global correction of flawed reasoning traces in Large Language Models. It uses an imperfect solution draft from an upstream solver as auxiliary context and combines task‑specific supervised fine‑tuning with a Dynamic Dual‑CFG inference mechanism that separates problem‑only and joint problem‑draft branches. Experiments on math, code, and knowledge reasoning benchmarks show that DCGC outperforms standard sampling and simpler CFG variants, and it can improve full test‑set accuracy even when ground‑truth failure labels are unavailable.
arXiv:2609.27220v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Diffusion language models generate text through iterative denoising, exposing intermediate trajectories before final answers are produced. We identify...
Diff Diffusion is a diffusion-inspired large language model framework designed for efficient code editing. It predicts edit paths from an original snippet to its revised form by representing denoising as structured edit operations, and uses multi-stage training and efficient parallel decoding to focus computation on changed regions. The approach matches or outperforms autoregressive baselines while achieving up to 2.78× faster inference and a 39.0% reduction in median model latency in production.
PlaidQ is a 0.7B continuous diffusion language model designed for code generation. By distilling its iterative refinement trajectory into only a few denoising steps—or even a single step—PlaidQ achieves competitive performance with discrete diffusion models while dramatically reducing inference time. The study demonstrates that continuous diffusion can be effectively compressed, enabling efficient and accurate code generation with minimal computational overhead.
The paper introduces Less Uniform Diffusion (LUDI), a framework that improves uniform diffusion language models by using a less uniform loss and per-token time embeddings to guide reverse transitions and enable confidence-based few-step sampling. Experiments demonstrate that LUDI provides cleaner supervision, enhances few-step generation, and scales to a 7B model (LUDI-7B) that achieves a 3-token-per-step speedup over autoregressive decoding while matching masked diffusion baselines. The work suggests that UDLMs still have untapped potential for complex generation tasks.
arXiv:2606. 27474v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: How should we evaluate generation systems that combine autoregressive (AR) and diffusion decoding?
Plan-and-Patch is a plan‑and‑act framework that uses a diffusion language model to generate structured, program‑like plans and then repairs them by filling in selected regions while keeping the surrounding steps fixed. The approach avoids regenerating entire plans, reducing unnecessary changes. Experiments show that on the Natural Plan benchmark, diffusion planners achieve a 53.7% plan‑repair success rate versus 27.0% for autoregressive planners, and after task‑specific training on ALFWorld and TextCraft, diffusion planners match autoregressive planners in plan generation success while cutting mean plan‑generation latency by 39–46%.
arXiv:2606. 10752v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Numerical solvers for partial differential equations (PDEs) are core computational tools in science and engineering.
arXiv:2507. 22580v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Automated Program Repair (APR) seeks to automatically correct software bugs without requiring human intervention.