arXiv preprint ·
Between the Commits: Process, Error, and Claim Reliability in a Wholly AI-Authored Codebase
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
We present: (i) a new dataset consisting of the full development history of a 21,000-line Python tool built entirely by Claude AI, with no human-authored code or tests, (ii) two code-provenance tracing tools, (iii) three taxonomies for instruction intent, commit provenance, and response reliability, (iv) application of these to analyse the dataset. We find that: (i) user coding agent CLI instructions differ in kind from IDE-chat instructions, with a greater focus on comprehension, planning and consultation, (ii) code development is mainly proactive, (iii) 14.3% of AI code-generation events contain a real error later caught by the AI-authored test suite, (iv) roughly 1 in 4-5 of the AI's interactive responses contains one or more factual errors.
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 Software Engineering
pytest-gpu-proof: Enabling Cloud-CPU Continuous Integration for GPU Code with Local GPU Attestation
A Framework for Identifying, Categorizing, and Explaining Bias in AI-Generated Code
Specification-Driven Benchmarking for Automated Program Repair From Static Corpora to Executable Specifications
Analyzing and Mitigating Cost-Inefficient Behaviors in Coding Agents
Automatic Harness Evolution for Hardware Design Verification: Can LLMs Consolidate Gains Across Discovered Harnesses?
Get the few papers worth your time in Software Engineering 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.