Papers › PatchWrite: One Line, Not One Section -- Compile-Gated, Validity-Preserving Editing...
PatchWrite: One Line, Not One Section -- Compile-Gated, Validity-Preserving Editing for AI-Drafted Manuscripts
Weiwei Yang
Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).
Automated manuscript pipelines often regenerate an entire section to repair a local defect, allowing unrelated metrics and citations to change even when the resulting PDF still builds. PatchWrite instead constrains how candidate edits become committed manuscript states: it reuses bounded EDIT N M editing and rollback, but tightens compilation acceptance with fatal-log checks and adds evidence locks that require every cited key and experimental numeric token to be attested by a reference registry or experimental log. Candidates that fail either check are rejected and the previous HEAD is retained. On a 24-manuscript x 8-fault oracle stress test (768 jobs, evenly split between compile-breaking and content-only faults), whole-slot rewriting mutated an unrelated "12-layer" line in every case (0/192 preserved; numeric Jaccard 0.6667), whereas PatchWrite preserved it in 192/192 cases. Removing the compile gate reduced acceptance to 0, while removing the evidence gate allowed a hallucinated citation to pass. The same pattern held across all eight faults. To test the protocol with generation rather than oracle edits, we reran the 192 jobs with the writer model proposing the edits. The model's candidates were accepted in 75% of cases; nearly all rejections came from one reproducible failure mode in which the model attempted to delete a line using an empty replacement unsupported by the current grammar. Every accepted candidate passed both gates, and 93.75% fixed the injected fault; the remaining cases involved a technically valid but sentence-inappropriate citation and one markup-changing near-miss. In a blind evaluation of sixteen PDF pairs, both raters preferred PatchWrite for preserving lab-grounded facts (C1 Likert 5.0 vs. 2.0), while rating prose quality nearly identically. Logs from 193 in-product drafting tasks show the same classes of failures occurring in practice.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2608.23001")
Code
Syntology Ran 13 of 15 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 2 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 1 ran · honoured contract; 1 ran · violated contract; 8 ran · our draft was wrong; 3 ran with no contract checked.
By repository: found in paper text by Syntology: 15 samples from 1 repository, 13 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
15 samples harvested; 13 ran; 1 honoured the contract we drafted; 2 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 0 of the 15 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from Baiang/editnm. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
be6460819d990c2d · report
95d5fb7fa790e36c · report
e77a92b66def6394 · report
3bc7d75e4940b0c8 · report
e9875a214a37ff56 · report
bdccad74bbb7c353 · report
fa060663f503f9a4 · report
d3ee1eaec80f3a82 · report
95797b1e7ec4887a · report
f9ff6ed77726cacc · report
eb45b0fc52b52b9f · report
97118b0124d04e4f · report
040a6b8528865057 · report
6b7341a25cc43308 · report
c0fedbca3b8740ec · report
Results from the paper
The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2608.23001, was issued in August 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections