arXiv preprint ·
Impact Is Not Invalidation: Ask About the Claim, Not the Diff
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Memory systems for coding agents must decide, when a repository changes, which of their stored claims have become false. Content anchoring invalidates a claim whenever the artifact it came from changes, which fires constantly. Semantic-equivalence classification asks whether a diff preserves behavior, a question about the diff rather than about any stored claim. We show the second signal fails for a reason unrelated to model capability: asked whether a commit preserves behavior, five models spanning a 40x price range fire on 59-72% of real commits and reach precisions of only 0.291 to 0.329 against a 0.25 base rate. Asked instead whether one specific claim still holds, the same models on the same diffs reach 0.705 to 0.974. A control that hands the behavior-preservation judge the claim text, changing only the question, moves precision by 0.010 and 0.016; changing the question moves it by 0.49 and 0.65. We also compare against pytest-testmon, a deployed regression-test selector with coverage-derived dependency data: it reaches 0.868 recall at 0.415 precision, so near-complete knowledge of what a change can reach does not identify what it falsifies. Ground truth is execution, not annotation: a claim is a test function passing at commit t, and it has flipped if that same assertion text fails at t+1. Building this required an observation we did not find in prior work. On a CI-gated mainline a commit that leaves a pre-existing test failing cannot merge, so the naive construction has an empty positive class by design. We report 10,369 claims with 184 execution-verified flips mined from 23 Python libraries, splits held out by repository, a post-knowledge-cutoff split, a shuffled-diff null, a paraphrase control, and a leave-one-repository-out analysis over 17 repositories.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Computation & Language / NLP
CTRL: Control-Based Time Series Forecasting with LLM-Guided Residual Learning
Some Dialects Are More Equal Than Others: Non-Prestigious Arabic Dialectal Bias in LLMs
Judging a Review by its Cover: A Reliability Analysis of LLM-based Peer Review Evaluation Metrics
Open-Jev Judgments on CallScreenBench: Calibrated One-Pass Scam Screening with a Small Language Model
Knowing When to Trust Images: Reliability-Aware Multi-modal Entity Alignment
Get the few papers worth your time in Computation & Language / NLP every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.