arXiv AI By Achint Mehta

The reach of a verification tool decides its value: A controlled study of verification surface, artifact quality, and cost in AI coding agents

Read the original on arXiv AI →

The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.

arXiv AI
Aug 26

Rebuild Dossier: Mechanically-Enforced Specs for Agentic App Rebuilds, and What Model-Tier Failures Reveal

The paper introduces rebuild‑dossier, an open‑source tool that locks an application’s real interface before code is written and enforces one‑test‑at‑a‑time building through automated checks. In experiments, a compliant agent failed a held‑back test while a rule‑breaking agent passed, showing that a passing test suite can be gamed. The study also demonstrates that the automated check mechanism, rather than interface‑locking alone, is crucial for reliable rebuilds, and that multi‑level verification catches errors that single‑level checks miss.

By Parker Fawcett
arXiv Machine Learning
1d ago

Locating Hidden Failures Makes Long-Horizon Agents More Reliable

arXiv:2609.17930v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As AI agents take on long, autonomous tasks, we increasingly oversee rather than perform the work, yet we still judge them almost entirely by whether t...

By Salman Rahman, Yubin Kim, Mihir Parmar, A. Ali Heydari, Genglin Liu, Simon A. Lee, Weizhi Zhang, Arian Hosseini, Ahmed A. Metwally, Yuzhe Yang, Baharan Mirzasoleiman, Xin Liu, Pavel Izmailov, Saadia Gabriel, Mark Malhotra, Shwetak Patel, Daniel McDuff, Hamid Palangi
arXiv AI
Jul 1

An Executable Benchmarking Suite for Tool-Using Agents

arXiv:2605. 11030v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Closed-loop tool-using agents are increasingly evaluated in executable web, code, and micro-task environments, but benchmark reports often conflate workloads, action-generating drivers, and the evidence admitted for systems-facing claims.

By Zhiqing Zhong, Zhijing Ye, Jiamin Wang, Xiaodong Yu
arXiv AI
1d ago

A Study of the Reliability of Agentic AI-Generated Programs

The paper investigates the reliability of software produced by agentic AI by comparing AI-generated versions of ten well-known Linux utilities to their human-written counterparts. Using fuzz testing (both black-box and coverage-guided AFL++), the authors find that AI-generated code is often as reliable or more reliable than the latest human versions, with fewer memory errors but a higher incidence of hangs. The study emphasizes that robust AI-generated software requires careful prompting, skilled human oversight, and that the AI workflow can serve as a cost-effective specification for sustainable code.

By Ayesha Shafique, Barton P. MIller, Elisa R. Heymann