arXiv AI

Don't Let the Model Write the YAML: Deterministic, Minimal-Diff GitOps Remediation from LLM-Proposed Field Changes

The paper investigates how large language models (LLMs) can propose changes to Kubernetes configuration files in a GitOps workflow. It shows that having the model directly generate edited files or diffs is unsafe for unattended automation, as current text‑generation strategies either fail to apply patches or silently misapply them. The authors propose a deterministic, minimal‑diff approach where the model emits only a structured intent for a field change, and a pipeline locates and replaces the exact character span in the raw YAML, preserving formatting and comments while guaranteeing correctness and O(1) generation cost.

arXiv AI
Sep 2

REVISE: Validity-Guided Recovery for Online Revisions in Agent Workflows

The paper introduces “Revise”, a runtime system that performs validity-guided, fine-grained recovery for online revisions in structured agent workflows. When a revision arrives, Revise intersects the change with recorded data and control dependencies, propagates the impact through the partially executed DAG, stops invalid work, preserves unaffected progress, and recomputes only the affected region. Experiments on real coding‑agent traces and LangGraph/LLMCompiler applications show that Revise matches a latest‑version oracle, reduces model calls by up to 56%, and improves service‑level objective goodput under load.

By Ruoling Qi, Xuaner Wu, Penghang Liu, Jian Chen, Yirui Liu
arXiv AI
Sep 10

Diffs vs. Whole Files: An Empirical Comparison of Iterative Edit-Based and Direct Generation for Flutter/Dart Code Models

The paper compares two output regimes for code-editing language models: direct generation, where the model outputs the entire modified file, and iterative diff-based generation, where the model emits a sequence of localized edits. Experiments on Flutter/Dart tasks show that direct generation consistently outperforms diff-based generation across metrics such as compilation success, token efficiency, and quality judgments. However, diff-based generation can be competitive for short, spatially localized edits, particularly in refactoring and error-handling tasks with few edit steps.

By Andrej Andrejev
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 14

Look Before You Leap: Pre-Action Verification for LLM Agents

The paper introduces a pre‑action verification framework for large language model agents that emit shell commands or code edits. By running deterministic checks before execution, the system can catch invalid commands (95.8% success with a 10.0% false‑positive rate) and prevent silent failures in code edits, achieving high recall while minimizing false positives. The authors provide benchmarks, verifiers, and guards for both action modalities.

By Asaad Althoubi
arXiv AI
Oct 9

Can LLMs Fix It Without Code? Toward Automated Verification of No-Code Bug Fixes

The paper investigates whether large language models (LLMs) can automatically verify no-code bug fixes—solutions that instruct users to change settings, upgrade versions, or alter workflows—by executing them in a real browser environment. Using 322 fixes from a benchmark, the study tests three executor agents (OpenCUA‑72B, Claude Sonnet 5, and Meta’s Muse Glimmer) and finds that only 17.6% of issues could be set up and passed sanity checks, with resolution rates ranging from 14.6% to 49.7% depending on the executor. Even the best configuration resolved fewer than half of the fixes, and executor choice significantly affected outcomes, highlighting the need for execution-based verification before such fixes reach users.

By Utku Boran Torun, Veli Karakaya, Eray T\"uz\"un
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 14

Local Edits, Global Ripples: Replay-Informed Policy Adaptation for Workflow Synthesis

The paper introduces RIPPLE, a method for adapting workflow-synthesizing agents through prompt-policy editing without retraining the underlying model. RIPPLE diagnoses failed execution trajectories, maps failures to specific policy segments, and restricts edits to those segments. It then evaluates candidate edits in isolation and replays only those that remain safe after composition, achieving up to a 23.1% improvement in validation success on a synthetic benchmark and positive gains on additional language‑model backbones.

By Manqing Mao, Hong Wang, Samson Koelle, Jie Yuan, Zhuoer Wang, James Feng, Yanjun Lin, Daniel Edmiston, Nikki Lijing Kuang, Zhecheng Sheng, Wei Niu
arXiv AI
Oct 1

How Should Diffusion Language Models Edit Code?

arXiv:2609.38257v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Code editing requires a model to decide where to make changes, generate the new content, and preserve everything else. We study how masked diffusion...

By Xijia Tao, Ziru Liu, Shansan Gong, Jiacheng Ye, Kecheng Chen, Zirui Wu, Lin Zheng, Xinyu Fu, Rui Liu, Lingpeng Kong