CyberIntel ⬡ News
★ Saved ◆ Cyber Reads
← Back ◬ AI & Machine Learning Aug 11, 2026

TeXFix-Bench: An Empirically Grounded Multi-Format Benchmark for LLM-Based Document Source Repair

arXiv AI Archived 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?)
    💬 Team Notes
    Article Info
    Source
    arXiv AI
    Category
    ◬ AI & Machine Learning
    Published
    Aug 11, 2026
    Archived
    Aug 11, 2026
    Full Text
    ✓ Saved locally
    Open Original ↗