aiqbench analysis
This research exposes critical failure modes in autonomous LLM-based code repair, revealing how models can enter infinite pseudo-fixing cycles by hallucinating bugs in clean code. Through mechanistic probing, the study identifies an internal steering vector that falsely activates a representation of "buggy code," leading to more damage than repair in iterative blind use scenarios. These findings are essential for establishing robust stopping conditions and safety protocols for fully autonomous software development systems.
If It's Not Buggy, Don't Fix It: On the Dynamics of Iterative Bug-fixing with LLMs
arXiv:2609.10123v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have become ubiquitous in software development, with LLM-based automated program repair tools increasingly used during code review. In this report, we explore the iterative blind use of LLMs as bug-fixers. Across multiple models and repair environments, we find that LLMs consistently claim to detect bugs in entirely bug-free programs while the rate of repair of buggy programs is less than that of the damage to correct programs. We also explore the long-term dynamics of this iterative process, and find that this frequently reaches a pseudo-bug-fixing cycle where the same changes are added and removed again ad infinitum. Lastly, via mechanistic probing, we unveil the existence of a steering vector which controls the editing propensity, suggesting that LLMs have an internal representation of ``buggy code", and that this representation is what is falsely activated to induce pseudo-bug fixing. These results provide insight towards the dynamics of fully autonomous bug-fixing systems, as well as stopping conditions under ambiguous goals.
Abstract:Large language models (LLMs) have become ubiquitous in software development, with LLM-based automated program repair tools increasingly used during code review. In this report, we explore the iterative blind use of LLMs as bug-fixers. Across multiple models and repair environments, we find that LLMs consistently claim to detect bugs in entirely bug-free programs while the rate of repair of buggy programs is less than that of the damage to correct programs. We also explore the long-term dynamics of this iterative process, and find that this frequently reaches a pseudo-bug-fixing cycle where the same changes are added and removed again ad infinitum. Lastly, via mechanistic probing, we unveil the existence of a steering vector which controls the editing propensity, suggesting that LLMs have an internal representation of ``buggy code", and that this representation is what is falsely activated to induce pseudo-bug fixing. These results provide insight towards the dynamics of fully autonomous bug-fixing systems, as well as stopping conditions under ambiguous goals.
Software Engineering (cs.SE); Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2609.10123 [cs.SE]
(or arXiv:2609.10123v1 [cs.SE] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.10123 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 259 words
Related coverage
Dynamic Jailbreaking Attack
arXiv · Aug 6, 2026

What are Agentic Workflows?
Databricks · Aug 6, 2026

[AINews] Meta Muse Wonder & Wonder Full: MSL’s Claude 5.5-tier Frontier Model
Latent Space · Oct 13, 2026

Pathway’s brain-inspired architecture development on Amazon SageMaker HyperPod
AWS · Sep 8, 2026