arXiv:2606. 31630v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Language models increasingly write probabilistic programs (in NumPyro, Stan, or Pyro), but a program that compiles, runs, and passes every unit test can still be \emph{statistically} wrong -- a Gaussian likelihood for heavy-tailed data, a Poisson for over-dispersed counts, an invalid prior support, or a pathological parameterization.
arXiv:2607. 12962v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Frozen small code LLMs are deployed locally, yet the information guiding a retry after a failed attempt is still measured without placebo controls in the self-repair literature.
arXiv:2606. 29654v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-agent deliberation among LLMs can improve reasoning, but deployment requires deciding when the current answer is reliable enough to act on and when it should be escalated to human review.
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.
The paper investigates the reliability of tool‑using agents, focusing on two failure modes: selecting the wrong tool and constructing incorrect arguments. It introduces a correct‑invocation rate metric to distinguish these errors and evaluates five open‑weight models on multi‑step tasks up to depth 8, finding that by depth 6 about 70% of a model’s clean‑context capability is lost due to earlier mistakes. The study reveals that exact‑match scoring against a fixed gold trajectory forces severity and recovery parameters to extreme values, and proposes a conditional‑on‑state scoring remedy that yields more realistic severity estimates.
arXiv:2606. 31511v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: In deployment settings where retraining is infeasible, small frozen code models are routinely asked to repair a failed program after seeing their own failing output, usually treated as a retry mechanism.
The paper audits a developer‑accessible on‑device language model, revealing that it can confidently produce incorrect answers while refusing benign prompts, a phenomenon termed task‑asymmetric miscalibration. The model’s confident outputs are surface‑indistinguishable, with classifiers based on user‑visible features failing to separate correct from wrong responses. The authors propose a model‑agnostic audit protocol, a surface‑indistinguishability test, and a black‑box consistency wrapper that improves reliability without requiring model access.
The study evaluates whether fault localization improves test‑guided code repair by comparing three approaches—blind whole‑solution resampling, spectrum‑based localized infilling, and random‑span infilling—across multiple large language models and benchmarks. Results show that localization is rarely available (only 9.0% of failing candidates), and when it is, localized infilling performs worse than blind resampling, with only suggestive evidence of a benefit over random spans. The findings suggest that targeted edits may not provide a consistent advantage over broader, untargeted repair attempts in current large‑model settings.
arXiv:2607. 17531v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Test-time collaboration, including self-consistency, best-of-N selection, critic models, and verifier pipelines, is often credited with broadly improving LLM reasoning, yet its gains are uneven and sometimes negative.
arXiv:2607. 06636v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models frequently generate code that appears correct on typical inputs yet fails on edge cases, invalid inputs, and other specification-defined corner conditions.
arXiv:2607. 17136v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Agentic computer-use RL is reported in single runs, and those numbers mislead.
arXiv:2606. 16999v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Frozen small code models ( =45.
arXiv:2604. 18245v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models operate in protocols containing multiple calls, yet added calls are usually evaluated only by their net effect.