arXiv (OAI Expanded)
open access
Looping Is Not Reliability: State-Bound Evidence and Typed Revision Contracts for Agentic Code Repair
Generate--test--revise loops are common in coding agents, but repetition alone provides no reliability guarantee. We study the gap between finding a correct patch and retaining, verifying, and submitting it. A sealed five-seed study over 30 HumanEval repairs produces 900 three-revision trajectories.
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Looping Is Not Reliability: State-Bound Evidence and Typed Revision Contracts for Agentic Code Repair#405691
- Multi-Perspective Agentic Program Repair via Code Property Graphs and Temporal Execution Graphs#366329
- Practical Source Code Recovery from Binary Functions Using Anchor-Based Retrieval and LLM Reasoning#361503
- Unlocking LLM Code Correction with Iterative Feedback Loops#282855
- A systematic review of BIM-based approaches for fire safety and automated code compliance checking / Sabine Veronika Hartmann, Jose Luis Jamora, Hendrik Willi Lars Morgenstern, Katharina Klemt-Albert#675381
Record · ID 1084304
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive