The workflow discovers new mistake candidates not explained by prior hand-picked mistakes, such as an exclusive-or-instead-of-negated-conjunction mistake¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · designr2·q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · recheck by 2029: tool and model accuracy changes quickly
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? The transformation representing using an exclusive or, expressed as a disjunction of conjunctions, instead of a negated conjunction explains 114 pairs (6.57% of pairs unexplained by hand-picked mistakes); a related hand-picked mistake covered only the bi-implication case. → Lilian Killich 2026
Evidence¶
Lilian Killich 2026¶
Lilian Killich, Marko Schmellenkamp, Fabian Vehlken, Thomas Zeume. (2026). Finding Common Mistakes In Modelling With Mathematical Formalisms Using LLMs. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.17111 doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.17111
q2 · i? · design · r2
Analysis of pairs exclusively explained by workflow-found transformations on the full propositional dataset; the xor-nand transformation "explains 114 pairs (6.57% of the pairs unexplained by the hand-picked mistakes)". A second transformation explained 28 pairs (1.61%).
"The transformation𝜌xor-nand represents the common mistake of using an exclusive or, expressed using a disjunction of conjunctions, instead of a negated conjunction which explains 114 pairs (6.57% of the pairs unexplained by the hand-picked mistakes)."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Educator inspection found most large clusters' main transformations suitable for feedback, though many required sub-transformations for targeted feedback — related
- On the full propositional logic dataset, LLM-found bug fixing transformations explain 84.44% of pairs versus 71.57% for hand-picked mistakes — a broader claim this one bears on
- Across linguistic-operator subdatasets, workflow-found transformations explain at least as many pairs as hand-picked mistakes in most cases — related
- The workflow generalizes beyond propositional logic, explaining 79.39% of modal logic pairs and 35.89% of CTL pairs — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
workflow-finds-mistakes-unexplained-by-prior-hand-picked |
title |
The workflow discovers new mistake candidates not explained by prior hand-picked mistakes, such as an exclusive-or-instead-of-negated-conjunction mistake |
description |
The workflow discovers new mistake candidates not explained by prior hand-picked mistakes, such as an exclusive-or-instead-of-negated-conjunction mistake |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2026 |
recheck_by |
2029 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-11 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — lilian-killich-2026 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.