TeXFix-Bench: An Empirically Grounded Multi-Format Benchmark for LLM-Based Document Source Repair
arXiv AIArchived Aug 11, 2026✓ Full text saved
arXiv:2608.07617v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Scientific and technical writing depends on markup sources that must compile: LaTeX, Typst, and Markdown pipelines fail on missing delimiters, mismatched environments, broken imports, or package conflicts. Existing document-repair evaluations inject faults with ad-hoc edits that lack an empirical fault model. We present TeXFix-Bench, a multi-format benchmark for LLM-based full-source document repair grounded in a mined fault taxonomy. A Grounded-Th
Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary· Claude Sonnet
Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence
[Submitted on 7 Aug 2026]
TeXFix-Bench: An Empirically Grounded Multi-Format Benchmark for LLM-Based Document Source Repair
Prajwal S. Venkateshmurthy
Scientific and technical writing depends on markup sources that must compile: LaTeX, Typst, and Markdown pipelines fail on missing delimiters, mismatched environments, broken imports, or package conflicts. Existing document-repair evaluations inject faults with ad-hoc edits that lack an empirical fault model. We present TeXFix-Bench, a multi-format benchmark for LLM-based full-source document repair grounded in a mined fault taxonomy. A Grounded-Theory study of localized hard-crash LaTeX faults from TeX Stack Exchange, GitHub commits, and package documentation (168 verified faults, dual open coding at
κ
=0.34) yields an 18-category taxonomy instantiated as DocMut: 48 AST-aware operators across three formats. A three-model cross-benchmark shows DocMut faults are 5.6-9.2 pp harder to repair than pattern-based mutations on the same seeds, and a real-error case study (88 mined human crashes, 67.0% repair success) brackets both synthetic sets from below. We construct 10,437 instances from 743 openly licensed seeds and evaluate seven LLMs under a fixed zero-shot protocol with provider-pinned routing, collecting 48,651 attempts at about USD 200 total inference cost. A complete 6,613-instance x 7-model balanced matrix confirms all rankings. A pinned engine gate yields a 27.5-point intention-to-treat compile spread (56.7-84.2%). Typst is markedly harder than LaTeX and Markdown. A restoration oracle over 28,129 compiling repairs shows that 13.6-18.5% of compiling repairs materially alter document text, and restoration rank diverges from compile rank: the model with the lowest compile rate restores content best among its successes. Compile success alone overstates repair quality. We release the taxonomy, DocMut, and all campaign artifacts.
Comments: 9 pages, 4 figures, 9 tables. Artifacts: this https URL
Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
Cite as: arXiv:2608.07617 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2608.07617v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.07617
Focus to learn more
Submission history
From: Prajwal S. Venkateshmurthy [view email]
[v1] Fri, 7 Aug 2026 05:56:35 UTC (23 KB)
Access Paper:
HTML (experimental)
view license
Current browse context:
cs.AI
< prev | next >
new | recent | 2026-08
Change to browse by:
cs
References & Citations
NASA ADS
Google Scholar
Semantic Scholar
Export BibTeX Citation
Bookmark
Bibliographic Tools
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data, Media
Demos
Related Papers
About arXivLabs
Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)