arXiv AI
PatchWrite: One Line, Not One Section -- Compile-Gated, Validity-Preserving Editing for AI-Drafted Manuscripts
Read the original on arXiv AI →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
Related stories
arXiv AI
Jul 28
Looping Is Not Reliability: State-Bound Evidence and Typed Revision Contracts for Agentic Code Repair
arXiv:2607. 24604v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Generate--test--revise loops are common in coding agents, but repetition alone provides no reliability guarantee.
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.
arXiv AI
Aug 11
TeXFix-Bench: An Empirically Grounded Multi-Format Benchmark for LLM-Based Document Source Repair
arXiv:2608. 07617v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Scientific and technical writing depends on markup sources that must compile: LaTeX, Typst, and Markdown pipelines fail on missing delimiters, mismatched environments, broken imports, or package conflicts.
arXiv AI
Sep 7
Better Understanding, Better Fixes? A Study of Hallucination in LLM-based Automated Program Repair
The paper investigates hallucination in large language model–based automated program repair (APR). It defines hallucination as producing patches or intermediate artifacts that are not grounded in available repair evidence, and analyzes it across final patches and intermediate tasks such as triggering test case identification, line coverage prediction, and additional test case generation. Experiments on 832 Defects4J bugs show that only 21.0%–55.9% of patches pass the developer test suite, with 72.7% of sampled repairs exhibiting hallucinations, often due to incorrect causal localization or repair strategies.
arXiv AI
Oct 9
Can LLMs Fix It Without Code? Toward Automated Verification of No-Code Bug Fixes
The paper investigates whether large language models (LLMs) can automatically verify no-code bug fixes—solutions that instruct users to change settings, upgrade versions, or alter workflows—by executing them in a real browser environment. Using 322 fixes from a benchmark, the study tests three executor agents (OpenCUA‑72B, Claude Sonnet 5, and Meta’s Muse Glimmer) and finds that only 17.6% of issues could be set up and passed sanity checks, with resolution rates ranging from 14.6% to 49.7% depending on the executor. Even the best configuration resolved fewer than half of the fixes, and executor choice significantly affected outcomes, highlighting the need for execution-based verification before such fixes reach users.
arXiv AI
Aug 3
To Add Is Machine, To Delete Is Human: Measuring and Mitigating Deletion Avoidance in LLM Code Editing
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.