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.
By Tongyao Zhu, Wei Hern Lim, Min-Yen Kan
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.
By Md Rafid Haque, Poojan Narendrabhai Patel, Meetkumar Vijaybhai Raychura
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.
arXiv:2607. 06125v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Neural decompilation is increasingly studied as a code-generation problem, yet its evaluation methodology remains underdeveloped for modern languages.
By Raafat Abualazm, Ayman AboElhassan, Amr G. Wassal
CROCODIL is a post‑training framework designed to improve cross‑model code editing with large language models (LLMs). It addresses the problem that different LLMs, trained on distinct datasets, often make excessive edits when applied to code generated by another model. By combining a similarity reward that discourages large changes with an execution reward that ensures build and test success, CROCODIL encourages smaller, functionally correct edits.
By Linghan Zhong, Aditya Thimmaiah, Jayanth Srinivasa, Milos Gligoric, Junyi Jessy Li
arXiv:2607. 12713v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Generated tokens are a direct driver of the cost, latency, and energy of generative AI (GAI) code editing.
By William Franz Lamberti
arXiv:2607. 18161v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Coding agents are increasingly used to accelerate code generation in many downstream tasks, such as fixing bugs, building applications, and prototyping.
By Alex Mathai, Shobini Iyer, Aleksandr Nogikh, Petros Maniatis, Franjo Ivancic, Junfeng Yang, Baishakhi Ray
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. We present CommitLLM, a three-stage pipeline that generates concise, Conventional Commits-compliant messages from code diffs using a fine-tuned small language model.
arXiv:2609.18745v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Antibody lead optimization calls for a small, bounded set of edits to an existing candidate: substitutions, but also insertions and deletions. Edit-bas...
By Gabriel B\'en\'edict, Melanie Buechler, Gerard Riera-Sol\`a, Chlo\'e de Ancos, Yves Gaetan Nana Teukam, Moritz Freidank
The paper introduces RIPPLE, a method for adapting workflow-synthesizing agents through prompt-policy editing without retraining the underlying model. RIPPLE diagnoses failed execution trajectories, maps failures to specific policy segments, and restricts edits to those segments. It then evaluates candidate edits in isolation and replays only those that remain safe after composition, achieving up to a 23.1% improvement in validation success on a synthetic benchmark and positive gains on additional language‑model backbones.
By Manqing Mao, Hong Wang, Samson Koelle, Jie Yuan, Zhuoer Wang, James Feng, Yanjun Lin, Daniel Edmiston, Nikki Lijing Kuang, Zhecheng Sheng, Wei Niu
arXiv:2604. 01029v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Multi-LLM revision pipelines, in which a second model reviews and improves a draft produced by a first, are widely assumed to derive their gains from genuine error correction.
By Jingjie Ning, Xueqi Li, Chengyu Yu
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.
By Jenny T. Liang, Mihika Bairathi, Wayne Chi, Ameet Talwalkar, Nishant Subramani, Valerie Chen