arXiv:2607. 24604v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Generate--test--revise loops are common in coding agents, but repetition alone provides no reliability guarantee.
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.
arXiv:2608. 07617v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Scientific and technical writing depends on markup sources that must compile: LaTeX, Typst, and Markdown pipelines fail on missing delimiters, mismatched environments, broken imports, or package conflicts.
The paper investigates hallucination in large language model–based automated program repair (APR). It defines hallucination as producing patches or intermediate artifacts that are not grounded in available repair evidence, and analyzes it across final patches and intermediate tasks such as triggering test case identification, line coverage prediction, and additional test case generation. Experiments on 832 Defects4J bugs show that only 21.0%–55.9% of patches pass the developer test suite, with 72.7% of sampled repairs exhibiting hallucinations, often due to incorrect causal localization or repair strategies.
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.
arXiv:2607. 28887v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models increasingly write and repair production code, yet evidence is mounting that their test-passing patches leave codebases harder to maintain.
arXiv:2609.08789v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Frontier AI developers publish safety frameworks that commit them to evidencing whether their models are dangerous. The European Union and California...
The paper introduces THEMIS, a stage-aware repair workflow that externalizes the requirement-to-repair process by generating semantic interpretations, a runtime requirement-code graph, graph-derived developer guidance, retained repair rationale and patches, and post-edit audit records. A retrospective audit of 300 SWE-bench Lite cases shows that these artifacts enable cross-stage inspection, with a complete developer rationale available for 288 cases and 214 cases retaining a full audited field set. The retained records also allow systematic measurement of cross-stage correspondence, revealing high recurrence of target symbols across rationales and patches, and a preliminary improvement in resolving cases compared to a direct same-input condition.
The study examines whether the built‑in FAIL_TO_PASS (F2P) tests in repository‑level issue‑resolution benchmarks can be used to evaluate the runtime performance of patches that pass correctness tests. Using four advanced language models paired with SWE‑agent, the authors measured instruction counts and wall‑clock times for 262 cases and applied Welch ANOVA to detect performance differences. They found that many patches exhibit significant runtime disparities, that performance rankings often contradict issue‑resolution rates, and that some architectural regressions are revealed only through performance analysis.
arXiv:2607. 28871v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: When a repair agent runs a test and sees it pass, the result is treated as evidence about the reported defect.
arXiv:2608. 13459v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We address the use of large language models (LLMs) to help discover Isabelle proofs.
The study investigates how language models equipped with tools can still produce unsupported final claims, even when a single tool call could resolve the uncertainty. It defines two metrics—occurrence (how often unsupported claims arise) and conditional repair (how often they are fixed when evidence is provided). Experiments on Qwen3-32B and Gemma 4 show that providing the missing evidence consistently repairs all unsupported claims in the Qwen3-32B setup, while the Gemma 4 model never produced unsupported claims under the tested conditions.