Across linguistic-operator subdatasets, workflow-found transformations explain at least as many pairs as hand-picked mistakes in most cases¶
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? For more than 64% of the linguistic operator subdatasets the workflow finds transformations explaining more pairs than the hand-picked mistakes, and for more than 14% it explains exactly as many. → 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
Comparison experiment on the propositional dataset partitioned into 34 subdatasets by linguistic operator (median size 65.5), testing whether the workflow reproduces the by-hand approach; the workflow "explain[s] more data points than the mistakes identified in [13]" for over 64% of subdatasets.
"For > 64% of the lingustic operator data sets, our workflow finds bug fixing transformations transformations that explain more data points than the mistakes identified in [13]. For > 14%of the subdata sets, the transformations explain exactly as many pairs as 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 — related
- The workflow discovers new mistake candidates not explained by prior hand-picked mistakes, such as an exclusive-or-instead-of-negated-conjunction mistake — 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-matches-hand-analysis-on-linguistic-operator-subsets |
title |
Across linguistic-operator subdatasets, workflow-found transformations explain at least as many pairs as hand-picked mistakes in most cases |
description |
Across linguistic-operator subdatasets, workflow-found transformations explain at least as many pairs as hand-picked mistakes in most cases |
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.