arXiv:2607. 25130v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Imperfections in AI-generated code require that software developers modify the generated code manually, or by re-prompting an AI programming assistant.
arXiv:2509.21891v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Fine-tuning large language models for code editing has typically relied on mining commits and pull requests. The working hypothesis has been...
arXiv:2606. 12620v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Thanks to the rapid adoption of AI code assistants powered by large language models (LLMs), industry codebases are, increasingly, a hybrid of AI- and human-authored code.
arXiv:2606. 10087v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Pre-training on raw code teaches syntax but provides sparse signal for diverse real-world task formats.
The paper investigates whether code large language models (CodeLLMs) inadvertently reproduce proprietary or sensitive code by evaluating seven state‑of‑the‑art training data detection (TDD) methods on eight CodeLLMs. It introduces CodeSnitch, a benchmark of 9,000 function‑level code samples across three languages, each labeled as included or excluded from training data, and applies mutation strategies based on the Type‑1 to Type‑4 code clone taxonomy to test TDD robustness. The study offers a systematic assessment of current TDD techniques for code and suggests directions for developing more effective detection methods.
arXiv:2607. 05188v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A coding agent solving a software-engineering task spends dozens of steps reasoning, editing code, and running tests, yet little is known about what the underlying language model internally represents about the program it is working on.
arXiv:2609.12708v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whe...
arXiv:2607. 02782v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Predictions by machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) models are often received skeptically unless they are paired with intelligible explanations.
arXiv:2608. 06640v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The widespread integration of AI coding assistants offers undeniable boosts to engineering velocity.
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:2511. 06090v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Optimizing the performance of large-scale software repositories demands expertise in code reasoning and software engineering (SWE) to reduce runtime while preserving program correctness.
arXiv:2507. 11687v5 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models excel at code generation but struggle with code linting, particularly in generalizing to unseen or evolving best practices beyond those observed during training.
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.