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:2608. 04611v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Frontier coding models now match or exceed strong human reference points on programming benchmarks, yet benchmark success does not imply maintainable software.
The paper investigates the problem of over‑editing by large language models when repairing code, showing that even state‑of‑the‑art models like GPT‑5.5 frequently rewrite more code than necessary. Using a benchmark of 400 BigCodeBench problems with controlled AST corruptions, the authors quantify excess edits and demonstrate that a simple preservation instruction can reduce unnecessary changes and improve pass rates. They further explore training strategies, finding that reinforcement learning yields the best balance between edit fidelity and performance retention, highlighting edit fidelity as a distinct, measurable dimension of code‑repair quality.
arXiv:2606. 16062v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We measure the rate at which code RL environments accept incorrect solutions as correct.
arXiv:2511. 05852v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Knowledge editing (KE) offers a lightweight alternative to retraining for updating large language models (LLMs).
The paper investigates the problem of over‑editing by large language models (LLMs) when repairing code, showing that even state‑of‑the‑art models like GPT‑5.5 often rewrite more code than necessary. Using a benchmark of 400 BigCodeBench problems with controlled AST‑level corruptions, the authors quantify over‑editing and demonstrate that a simple preservation instruction can significantly reduce excess edits and cognitive complexity while improving Pass@1. They further explore post‑training strategies, finding that reinforcement learning yields the best balance between edit fidelity and performance retention, thereby establishing edit fidelity as a distinct, measurable dimension of code‑repair quality.
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:2608.23001v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Automated manuscript pipelines often regenerate an entire section to repair a local defect, allowing unrelated metrics and citations to change even whe...
arXiv:2607. 07946v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: DeepSWE is a benchmark of 113 original, long-horizon software engineering tasks for evaluating coding agents.
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.
arXiv:2605. 14084v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Code agents must both reason over long-horizon repository state and obey strict tool-use protocols.
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:2608. 10502v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Persistent memory lets language-model agents reuse information across sessions, but it also makes errors durable: a poisoned, stale, or misattributed record can alter reasoning, tool use, answers, and subsequent memory writes.