#01Jul 30, 2026
cs.SE
PAIChecker: Uncovering and Checking PR-Issue Misalignment in SWE-Bench-Like Benchmarks
Manyi Wang, Junjielong Xu, Pinjia He
SWE-bench-like benchmarks are widely used for evaluating LLM's issue resolution capability. They typically follow a common construction pipeline: each PR (Pull Request) is paired with its linked issue by extracting issue references from the PR description; the issue description is used as the problem statement, and the PR patch serves as the test oracle. However, due to the inherent complexity of developing and maintaining large repositories, such PR-Issue pairings are often misaligned in practice. In this work, we systematically study SWE-bench Verified instances, finding that 13.6% exhibit misalignment across five patterns in eleven fine-grained scenarios. To enable reliable and scalable construction of those benchmarks in the future, we propose PAIChecker, a multi-agent system for checking PR-Issue misalignment in SWE-bench-like benchmarks. Specifically, PAIChecker adopts a three-phase design that combines specific pattern identification, cross-agent label synthesis, and code-level validation, thereby enabling more accurate, generalizable, and progressively verified detection. Experiments on SWE-Gym and SWE-bench Multilingual show that PAIchecker achieves the best performance across all four LLM backbones, reaching up to 92.12% and 91.67% binary accuracy, respectively.
#02Jul 30, 2026
cs.CL
Sample More, Reflect Less: Self-Refine and Reflexion Lose to Repeated Sampling at Equal Token Cost, from 1.5B to 7B
Iliya Mirzaei
Methods that make a language model plan, criticise and rewrite its own answer, reflect on mistakes, pick the best of several attempts, or debate with copies of itself nearly all make it generate far more text than a single chain of thought. Because generating more text raises accuracy by itself, a gain over one chain of thought does not show the method's idea is what helped. Wang et al. (2024) reported that a simple baseline, sampling the same question repeatedly and keeping the most common answer, often wins once budgets are comparable, but gave point estimates with no confidence intervals or significance tests. We rerun that comparison as a designed experiment: seven methods, open models of 1.5B, 3B and 7B parameters, two mathematics benchmarks, 150 questions each. We count every generated token, including those spent on critiques, reflections, debate turns and checking, and compare each method against repeated sampling at its own measured cost. All 36 comparisons are paired by question, with bootstrap intervals and multiplicity correction. No method is reliably better than repeated sampling at equal cost anywhere. Ten are reliably worse, all of them methods where the model inspects its own output, and all 18 self-inspection comparisons are negative. The two kinds of self-inspection part company as models grow. Choosing stops hurting: taking Best-of-N's eight samples and just counting the most common answer beats letting the model pick by 8.0 and 11.3 points at 1.5B, but only 2.0 and 1.3 at 7B, no longer distinguishable from zero. Rewriting does not recover: Self-Refine and a forced Reflexion stay 3.6 to 10.1 points below baseline at 7B. Reflexion as published never triggered its own retry on the smallest model. It judged itself correct every time and silently became a single chain of thought. We release code, prompts, all generations, and our verification scripts.
#03Jul 30, 2026
cs.GT
Algorithms for Structured Elections under Thiele Voting Rules
Alexandra Lassota, Krzysztof Sornat
We study the computational complexity of winner determination problems in approval-based committee elections under Thiele voting rules. These form a class of rules parameterized by a fixed weight vector that specifies how a voter's satisfaction depends on the number of approved candidates elected. We first analyze the structure of optimal solutions based on the sets of voters who approve each candidate---that is, how voters' approval ballots induce dependencies between candidates---revealing constraints on a winning committee under any fixed Thiele voting rule. Using this, we design FPT algorithms for Proportional Approval Voting (PAV) and other Thiele rules on a natural restricted domain known as the Voter Interval (VI) domain---that is, after a suitable ordering of voters, each candidate is approved by a consecutive interval of voters. In particular, we show that every Thiele rule on VI is FPT with respect to a parameter for which the problem is NP-hard on general instances, even when the parameter takes constant values. Our results advance the understanding of the computational complexity of PAV on Voter Interval instances, which remains one of the central open questions in this area. We further resolve two open questions from the literature on PAV (and other Thiele voting rules) by providing a polynomial-time algorithm for instances where each candidate is approved by at most two voters, and an FPT algorithm parameterized by the total score of a winning committee.
#04Jul 30, 2026
cs.LG
APO: Unsupervised Atomic Policy Optimization for 3D Structure Prediction of Atomic Systems
Shentong Mo, Yatao Bian
Predicting the 3D structures of atomic systems is fundamental to advancing material science and drug discovery. While flow-matching models (, FlowDPO) have recently shown promise in this domain, their performance relies heavily on alignment with ground-truth coordinates via supervised preference learning. However, obtaining experimental labels for novel crystal phases or de novo proteins is prohibitively expensive, creating a bottleneck for structural modeling in data-scarce regimes. In this work, we propose (Atomic Policy Optimization), a fully unsupervised alignment framework that eliminates the need for ground-truth reference structures. APO adapts group-relative policy optimization to 3D atomic environments, utilizing a novel dual-reward mechanism: (i) a that reinforces the policy's dominant latent structural modes through eigen-decomposition of sample similarities, and (ii) a that enforces thermodynamic stability. Our framework enables the model to ``self-correct'' by identifying physically plausible configurations within sampled groups. Extensive benchmarks on crystal and antibody structure prediction demonstrate that APO consistently outperforms fully supervised baselines, achieving a new state-of-the-art in match rates and structural fidelity. Furthermore, we show that APO effectively straightens probability paths, significantly improving inference efficiency. Our results suggest that intrinsic physical consistency can serve as a superior guide for alignment compared to noisy, supervised coordinate matching.
#05Jul 30, 2026
cs.CV
Finding Change in Satellite Archives from Text: How to Combine Before-and-After Images Efficiently
Simon Roy, Mark Bong, Giovanni Beltrame
Operational Earth observation increasingly calls for answering queries such as ``find the image pairs where a new building appeared.'' This means searching an archive of before-and-after (bi-temporal) satellite image pairs and ranking each pair by how well it matches a natural-language description of the change. The component that performs this match, the fusion module that combines the ``before'' and ``after'' views, must be run at query time across many candidate pairs, so its speed largely sets the cost of every search. We present a controlled comparison of how to build that module. Using one fixed image encoder (a frozen CLIP model) and one training recipe for all variants, we evaluate eight designs drawn from three families: attention, state-space models (Mamba), and learned compression (our Temporal Bottleneck Fusion, TBF). Each design is tested on two benchmarks (LEVIR-CC and Dubai-CC) with ten random seeds, so the reported differences are statistically grounded. We outline three findings: first, a training-free two-stage search (a cheap difference model that shortlists candidates, followed by attention fusion that re-ranks them) matches or exceeds full-fusion recall on LEVIR-CC while cutting query cost $10$-$15\times$, with comparable R@1/R@5 on Dubai-CC; second, the linear-time scan of Mamba, attractive on paper, gives no speed benefit at the patch counts typical of vision transformers ($L{=}196$): the scan is limited by memory bandwidth, whereas attention maps cleanly onto parallel hardware; and third, compressing the fused representation (TBF) reduces parameters by $2.3\times$ and latency by $1.6\times$ for a change-only BLEU-1 cost of $0.007$, although more aggressive compression quietly discards change-relevant detail that aggregate metrics fail to reveal.