Imperfect Visual Verification for Code Edition : A Case Study on TikZ

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.15693v1
• Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2026 12:21:52 GMT
• Title: Imperfect Visual Verification for Code Edition : A Case Study on TikZ
• Abstract summary: We use TikZ as a focused case study that isolates the core difficulties of the problem.<n>We define visual code customization as an iterative editing problem with an imperfect oracle.<n>Our findings show that even imperfect verifiers can determine with moderate accuracy whether visual instructions are applied to code, achieving F1-scores up to 0.815.
• Score: 3.6213861298681826
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: LLMs have significantly advanced code generation, enabling the synthesis of functional programs. While recent systems achieve strong performance on many coding benchmarks, tasks involving programs such as TikZ that generate visual artifacts remain challenging, in particular on visual code customization. Unlike generation from scratch, customization requires localized, semantics-preserving edits: the model must locate relevant code, modify it according to the instruction, and preserve the remaining structure and rendering. Approaches based on post-hoc iterative refinement/correction where a verifier provides feedback to guide corrections, have shown promise. However, in the case of programs with a visual outcome such as in TikZ, where correctness is harder or likely impossible to formalize and evaluate automatically, deterministic verifiers do not exist. Hence, developers can only rely on imperfect verifiers. In this paper, we conduct an empirical study to answer:to what extent can iterative refinement remain effective when the verifier itself is unreliable?} We use TikZ as a focused case study that isolates the core difficulties of the problem (weak code structure, fine-grained visual semantics, and difficult feature localization) in a controlled and challenging setting. We define visual code customization as an iterative editing problem with an imperfect oracle, and introduce a framework for analyzing such iterative refinements. We conduct a large-scale study and evaluate multiple LLM-based and tool-augmented visual verifiers within iterative refinement pipelines, and perform extensive manual annotation of refinement trajectories to assess verifier behavior and feedback quality. Our findings show that even imperfect verifiers can determine with moderate accuracy whether visual instructions are applied to code, achieving F1-scores up to 0.815. Feedback improves iterative refinement, especially for weaker models, adding 11--20 perfect customizations for Qwen3-vl-30b-a3b-Instruct, while stronger models like Gemini-3 gain fewer improvements (+5) but benefit more from accurate verification that prevents premature acceptance. Feedback is effective only when it precisely identifies image issues, provides actionable guidance, addresses all relevant problems, and remains grounded in the original instruction.

Related papers

• RepoProbe: Benchmarking Architecture-Aware Repository Comprehension with Checklists [12.810164698494281]
  RepoProbe is a novel benchmark for evaluating repository-level code understanding.<n>We propose a Checklist-Based Verification Protocol that decomposes answers into atomic, verifiable facts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-05T12:49:36Z)
• Benchmarking Code Improvement with Progressive, Adaptive, and Interactive Feedback [13.976149104483449]
  PAIR-Bench is a progressive benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs)<n>It transforms an incorrect or incomplete program into a more correct one through feedback-guided refinement.<n>It measures whether a model repairs targeted failures, generalizes beyond the hint, preserves already-correct behavior, and how much assistance it requires.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-01T18:20:27Z)
• LiveFMBench: Unveiling the Power and Limits of Agentic Workflows in Specification Generation [75.05397479715576]
  Large language models (LLMs) and agents have shown promising progress, but their true capabilities and failure modes remain unclear.<n>We present the first systematic and contamination-aware study of LLM- and agent-based formal specification generation for C programs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-02T11:31:33Z)
• Vibe-Coding: Feedback-Based Automated Verification with no Human Code Inspection, a Feasibility Study [0.0]
  This paper studies feedback-based automated verification of LLM-generated adaptation managers in Collective Adaptive Systems (CAS)<n>We focus on the key challenges of verification in the loop: how to detect failures of generated code at runtime and how to report them.<n>Our findings suggest that feedback precision is the dominant factor for reliable vibe coding in systems designed by domain experts with no programming skills.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-16T10:58:03Z)
• Beyond Fixed Tests: Repository-Level Issue Resolution as Coevolution of Code and Behavioral Constraints [17.818522356206977]
  Most large language model (LLM)-based repair systems treat behavioral constraints as fixed during repair.<n>We propose Agent-CoEvo, a coevolutionary multi-agent framework in which candidate code patches and test patches are jointly explored and refined.<n>Agent-CoEvo consistently outperforms state-of-the-art agent-based and agentless baselines in both repair success and test reproduction quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-06T10:26:46Z)
• Correct Answers from Sound Reasoning: Verifiable Process Supervision for Language Models [94.68358825189738]
  We propose a post-training framework for verifiable domains that jointly optimize prediction accuracy and reasoning quality.<n>We evaluate VPS on chess, a controlled testbed where reasoning steps can be deterministically verified against engine signals.<n>VPS preserves accuracy while significantly improving reasoning quality, reducing win-rate error by up to 30% and restoring consistency to near saturation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-03T15:19:46Z)
• Readability-Robust Code Summarization via Meta Curriculum Learning [53.44612630063336]
  In the real world, code is often poorly structured or obfuscated, significantly degrading model performance.<n>We propose RoFTCodeSum, a novel fine-tuning method that enhances the robustness of code summarization against poorly readable code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-09T02:38:24Z)
• Taming Imperfect Process Verifiers: A Sampling Perspective on Backtracking [54.43083499412643]
  Test-time algorithms that combine the generative power of language models with process verifiers offer a promising lever for eliciting new reasoning capabilities.<n>We introduce a new process-guided test-time sampling algorithm, VGB, which uses theoretically grounded backtracking to achieve provably better robustness to verifier errors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-03T16:21:14Z)
• EdiVal-Agent: An Object-Centric Framework for Automated, Fine-Grained Evaluation of Multi-Turn Editing [170.71134330650796]
  EdiVal-Agent is an object-centric evaluation framework for instruction-based image editing.<n>It is designed to assess not only standard single-turn but also multi-turn instruction-based editing with precision.<n>We build EdiVal-Bench, a benchmark covering 9 instruction types and 13 state-of-the-art editing models spanning in-context, flow-matching, and diffusion paradigms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-16T17:45:39Z)
• Probing Pre-trained Language Models on Code Changes: Insights from ReDef, a High-Confidence Just-in-Time Defect Prediction Dataset [0.0]
  We present ReDef, a high-confidence benchmark of function-level modifications curated from 22 large-scale C/C++ projects.<n>Defective cases are anchored by revert commits, while clean cases are validated through post-hoc history checks.<n>This pipeline yields 3,164 defective and 10,268 clean modifications, offering substantially more reliable labels than prior existing resources.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-11T07:07:11Z)
• CompassVerifier: A Unified and Robust Verifier for LLMs Evaluation and Outcome Reward [50.97588334916863]
  We develop CompassVerifier, an accurate and robust lightweight verifier model for evaluation and outcome reward.<n>It demonstrates multi-domain competency spanning math, knowledge, and diverse reasoning tasks, with the capability to process various answer types.<n>We introduce VerifierBench benchmark comprising model outputs collected from multiple data sources, augmented through manual analysis of metaerror patterns to enhance CompassVerifier.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-05T17:55:24Z)
• LLM Code Customization with Visual Results: A Benchmark on TikZ [6.3303908500560615]
  We introduce vTikZ, the first benchmark to evaluate the ability of Large Language Models to customize code while preserving coherent visual outcomes.<n>Our benchmark consists of carefully curated vTikZ editing scenarios, parameterized ground truths, and a reviewing tool that leverages visual feedback to assess correctness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-07T08:26:54Z)
• Improving LLM Reasoning through Scaling Inference Computation with Collaborative Verification [52.095460362197336]
  Large language models (LLMs) struggle with consistent and accurate reasoning. LLMs are trained primarily on correct solutions, reducing their ability to detect and learn from errors. We propose a novel collaborative method integrating Chain-of-Thought (CoT) and Program-of-Thought (PoT) solutions for verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-05T05:21:48Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.