arXiv:2607. 13091v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM-based coding agents repeat the same classes of mistakes across sessions because they lack a mechanism to retain corrections from human review feedback.
Summary generated by The Flow from the publisher's feed. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
arXiv:2605. 17548v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Code review has evolved for decades, from informal peer checking to today's pull request (PR) workflows, yet it remains a largely manual and cognitively demanding process.
arXiv:2606. 28438v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Recursive self-training can degrade neural generative models when generated data is reused without fresh human data or external quality control.
arXiv:2608. 15591v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Model (LLM) agents deployed in production environments face a fundamental tension: the agent's behavior is frozen at deployment time, while the business rules and edge cases it must handle continue to evolve.
arXiv:2608. 05179v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly used across the scientific research lifecycle: ideation, literature search, experiment design and execution, analysis, manuscript drafting, and review.
arXiv:2607. 16345v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Modern agentic systems increasingly rely on skills: installable packages of natural language and code that teach an LLM agent to perform a domain task.
arXiv:2607. 03316v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Agentic code review, where autonomous agents provide code review comments on pull requests, is increasingly integrated into development workflows, yet there is limited empirical evidence on how developers respond to such comments in practice.