Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

This research introduces the Software World Model (SWM), a language model fine-tuned to predict downstream system breakages caused by code changes, addressing the limitations of static dependency graphs. By executing candidate changes and learning from execution outcomes, SWM significantly improves the accuracy of blast-set prediction and change ranking for autonomous coding agents. This approach enables safer software development workflows where AI agents can proactively assess risks before modifying complex systems.
Sources coveringarXiv, AI Alignment Forum, Analytics Vidhya, Quantum Computing Report
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Software World Models: From Consequence Prediction to Decision Value

arXiv3 min read

arXiv:2610.04940v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: A coding agent may safely modify one repository while silently breaking downstream services, libraries, or datastores that depend on it. Exhaustively running integration tests after every agent action is impractical, so the agent must predict these failures before executing them. Existing software world models predict the agent's own observations, while static change-impact analysis only identifies where a change may propagate. We instead introduce the Software World Model (SWM), which models the broader system affected by a code change and predicts its blast set: the components that the change will break. SWM follows three stages: explore, learn, and act. Explore executes candidate changes from restored system states, prioritizing regions where observed failures contradict the dependency graph. Learn fine-tunes a language model on these execution outcomes to predict downstream breakage. Act converts sampled predictions into per-consumer break probabilities for change ranking, proactive migration, and deciding when another execution is worth its cost. On held-out synthetic systems, SWM improves blast-set F1 from 0.431 for static reachability to $0.571\pm0.037$, more than halves ranking regret, and improves migration return at all nine evaluation checkpoints. The two methods are complementary: reachability is stronger on dependencies represented in the graph, while SWM recovers failures caused by couplings the graph misses. Experiments on held-out real libraries further show that predicting structured failure outcomes, rather than only scalar risk, is important for downstream decision quality.

Abstract:A coding agent may safely modify one repository while silently breaking downstream services, libraries, or datastores that depend on it. Exhaustively running integration tests after every agent action is impractical, so the agent must predict these failures before executing them. Existing software world models predict the agent's own observations, while static change-impact analysis only identifies where a change may propagate. We instead introduce the Software World Model (SWM), which models the broader system affected by a code change and predicts its blast set: the components that the change will break. SWM follows three stages: explore, learn, and act. Explore executes candidate changes from restored system states, prioritizing regions where observed failures contradict the dependency graph. Learn fine-tunes a language model on these execution outcomes to predict downstream breakage. Act converts sampled predictions into per-consumer break probabilities for change ranking, proactive migration, and deciding when another execution is worth its cost. On held-out synthetic systems, SWM improves blast-set F1 from 0.431 for static reachability to $0.571\pm0.037$, more than halves ranking regret, and improves migration return at all nine evaluation checkpoints. The two methods are complementary: reachability is stronger on dependencies represented in the graph, while SWM recovers failures caused by couplings the graph misses. Experiments on held-out real libraries further show that predicting structured failure outcomes, rather than only scalar risk, is important for downstream decision quality.

Machine Learning (cs.LG); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Software Engineering (cs.SE)

arXiv:2610.04940 [cs.LG]

(or arXiv:2610.04940v1 [cs.LG] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.04940 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 · 326 words

Related coverage