Measuring false alarms on human-verified-correct ProcessBench traces with the present task held byte-identical, it is found that a completed audit ->repair episode already in the model's context lowers false alarms in 15 of 15 model x wording combinations.
Abstract
Automated checking pipelines increasingly place one language model as the checker and another (or the same one) as the fixer. We ask whether that wiring changes what the checker reports. Measuring false alarms on human-verified-correct ProcessBench traces with the present task held byte-identical, we find that a completed audit ->repair episode already in the model's context lowers false alarms in 15 of 15 model x wording combinations, by 2.8 to 11.5 percentage points against a length-matched non-audit control, a 9 to 25% reduction relative to that control. The direction contradicts what the accumulated-message literature predicts: an episode whose audit reported an error lowers false alarms further still, at all five wordings on the model where that manipulation lands cleanly, though a negativity asymmetry predicts more flagging. Decomposing the episode finds repair content and audit verdict complementary: different components carry the effect on different model families. Signal-detection analysis locates the change in the threshold rather than in discrimination -- the criterion moves in 15 of 15 combinations and survives correction in 13 while d'survives in none, though the d'test is half as sensitive by construction -- and a hand audit of 50 false alarms finds 82% simply wrong, so at this operating point the shift need not be harmful. With reasoning enabled the effect keeps its relative size on both models tested, and the threshold reading holds there too.
An executed exploit is reported showing a specification-level authorization defect that produced no high or medium impact finding, its consequence for repair metrics, where it biases both transition counts upward and can confound comparison between methods producing differently sized .patches.
Staley Ian· International Journal of Inn...· 0 citations
These results establish an auditable release boundary and failure attribution under declared contracts, not universal semantic safety or learning gains, not universal semantic safety or learning gains.
This framework is the first controlled, pre-registered instrument for this choice and never reads catch alone, and recovers up to 0.95 informedness over eight-action review, and no tested label-blind policy consistently beats it.
Large language models increasingly write and repair production code, yet evidence is mounting that their test-passing patches leave codebases harder to maintain. We identify one concrete source: deletion avoidance, the systematic tendency to retain code that an intended edit requires removing. Across the five leading models on the official SWE-bench Verified leaderboard, deletion recall against the developer patch reaches at most 71.7% even on tasks all five solve, and models reach the right file for over 92% of required deletions but cut the exact line in under 52% of cases. Instead, 29.0% of passing patches wrap the targeted code in a guard or fallback, a pattern we call Guard-and-Go. Such patches pass because the original tests rarely check removal: when we retrofit 34 Verified tasks with tests that fail if the targeted code remains, four frontier models spanning closed and open weights fall from 63.2% to 41.9%. Because real repairs mix removal with addition, we curate CanItDelete, a benchmark of 200 tasks mined from real commits whose entire required edit is deletion. Even with the addition work gone, the best model still fails one task in five, and smaller open models fall to 18.0%. We then ablate GPT-5.6 Sol under four cumulative prompts; success moves little until we supply the exact lines, which nearly eliminate incomplete deletion yet raise success only to 80.5% because the model then deletes beyond the spans or adds code instead. Finally, through a pilot study we show one potential fix: teaching deletion during post-training reduces deletion avoidance and improves broader code-editing performance, suggesting the behavior is undertrained rather than beyond reach.
A. M. Ebrahimi, M. M. Hasan, Aaditya Bhatia et al.· 0 citations
An audit-and-placebo protocol is proposed that separates verifier artifacts, interaction scaffolding, and grounded feedback credit in evaluations of self-evolving test generators in evaluations of self-evolving test generators.
Yunhao Liang, Chengguang Gan, Ruixuan Ying et al.· 0 citations
When a repair agent runs a test and sees it pass, the result is treated as evidence about the reported defect. We measure how often that treatment is warranted. BSG-VA (buggy-state/candidate-state/gold-fix validation analysis) captures each validation command at its exact working-tree state, extracts a test-only patch, and replays the command on the original buggy code (B), the candidate state (S), and the developer gold fix (G). The captured outcome and the replay results assign every event an evidence role, from gold-aligned bug-discriminating through regression-only to misleading. Across 3,730 events in 643 rollouts on 110 tasks, 46.0% of positive comparable events carry no bug-discriminating information; 23.8% of baseline rollouts, with no feedback injected, close with a patch whose entire positive evidence base is of this kind. A three-arm experiment tests whether returning the B-replay outcome to the agent changes this pattern. Bug-contrast feedback reduces evidence-inadequate closure by 7.8 percentage points relative to an attention-matched reminder (p = 0.0029) and raises bug-discriminating evidence by 7.4 points (p = 0.011), with no detectable cost to repair success. Both estimates fall below the prespecified 10-percentage-point smallest effect size of interest, so practical magnitude remains uncertain. Roughly a third of the improvement traces to the reminder alone; across two exploratory replications, varying the scaffold and the model, the B-replay content adds a detectable increment only with gpt-5.6-sol under the unconstrained tool-use loop. BSG-VA applies post hoc to any replayable repair trajectory that preserves the required code states and execution environment. Keywords: program repair agents, validation evidence, test adequacy, large language models, software quality, controlled experiment.
