arXiv AI

CommitLLM: A Fine-Tuned Pipeline for Git Commit Message Generation

arXiv:2607. 17532v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Developers frequently write uninformative git commit messages such as "fix" or "update stuff", degrading the value of version-control history for code review, debugging, and onboarding.

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 Computation and Language
Sep 25

Large Language Models for Programming: Actually Fixing or Reimplementing Incorrect Code?

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.

By Alexandru Stefan Stoica, Traian Rebedea, Marian Cristian Mihaescu
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 4

What Else Needs Fixing? Exploring Cost-Effective Test-Time Compute for Revision Propagation in Artifacts Generated Through Conversation

The paper investigates how large language models can propagate user-specified local changes to all affected parts of artifacts generated through conversational interaction. It introduces a new benchmark for this setting and evaluates nine revision methods—including sequential reflection and parallel sampling variants—using several LLMs. Results show baseline accuracies between 68.3% and 93%, with the most cost‑effective approach achieving a 2.2%–9.7% accuracy improvement by selecting from three parallel samples.

By Daisuke Kikuta
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Sep 24

Large Language Models for Programming: Actually Fixing or Reimplementing Incorrect Code?

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.

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