Daily Papers

The dominant paradigm treats AI safety as a property to be instilled during model training via RLHF, DPO, or Constitutional AI. We argue this is structurally insufficient for autonomous agents that execute code, mutate files, send messages, and modify databases. Agent safety should be a runtime contract enforced by the harness, and the contract has two complementary faces. The preventive face blocks dangerous actions before they happen via sandboxes, permission gates, output filters, and trajectory monitors. The evidential face requires verifiable proof that good actions actually happened, gating task submission on hard evidence such as test runs, log captures, file diffs, and citation grounding. We ground the position in four lines of public evidence, with row-level protocols and data released in the supplementary JSON files: a survey of 52 documented AI-agent and LLM safety incidents, a false-completion audit with 31 non-contested core cases plus one disputed illustrative case, a trajectory-schema audit of 12 public agent systems and harnesses, and a title-level audit of all 28,560 papers accepted at NeurIPS, ICML, and ICLR 2023-2025 showing a pooled 8-12x imbalance between training-time and deployment-time publication. Two prior communities that needed to enforce safety, computer security and the experimental sciences, converged on runtime contracts with both preventive and evidential elements; agentic AI is now under the same pressure. We formalize an Agent Trajectory Schema and Evidence Chain, state a compositional gating proposition based on standard monitor composition, and outline a research agenda. The right unit of safety in agentic AI is the trajectory-with-checkable-evidence, not the model.

Large language models used for code editing can be trained and deployed in at least two output regimes: direct generation, where the model emits the entire modified file in one shot, and iterative diff-based generation ("steps"), where the model emits a sequence of localized search/replace edits applied one at a time until it signals completion or a step budget is exhausted. The diff-based regime is attractive because it mirrors how developers edit code and should require far fewer generated tokens per turn. We train two code models - a 100M-parameter model trained from scratch (Rainbow-Pony-100M) and a fine-tuned Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B - in both regimes on a shared Flutter/Dart dataset, and evaluate all four resulting models on a held-out set of approx 1,790 tasks per model. Direct generation substantially outperforms diff-based generation on every metric we measure - compilation/static-analysis pass rate, bits-per-byte, character-level similarity to the reference, and blinded LLM-judge ratings of goal fulfillment, correctness, and code quality - and the gap persists after controlling for task difficulty via a matched-ID comparison and when restricting to code that compiles on both sides. We then identify a single, architecture-independent mechanism behind the conditions where diff-based generation does win: it is competitive on short, spatially localized edits, and its category-level wins concentrate in exactly the two task categories - refactoring and error-handling/edge-case fixes - with the lowest mean edit-step count in our dataset. We term this task locality and discuss its implications for when an edit-based training regime is and is not the right choice for a code-editing model.

This paper presents Megadiff, a dataset of source code diffs. It focuses on Java, with strict inclusion criteria based on commit message and diff size. Megadiff contains 663 029 Java diffs that can be used for research on commit comprehension, fault localization, automated program repair, and machine learning on code changes.

Reliable handling of code diffs is central to agents that edit and refactor repositories at scale. We introduce Diff-XYZ, a compact benchmark for code-diff understanding with three supervised tasks: apply (old code + diff rightarrow new code), anti-apply (new code - diff rightarrow old code), and diff generation (new code - old code rightarrow diff). Instances in the benchmark are triples langle old code, new code, diff rangle drawn from real commits in CommitPackFT, paired with automatic metrics and a clear evaluation protocol. We use the benchmark to do a focused empirical study of the unified diff format and run a cross-format comparison of different diff representations. Our findings reveal that different formats should be used depending on the use case and model size. For example, representing diffs in search-replace format is good for larger models in the diff generation scenario, yet not suited well for diff analysis and smaller models. The Diff-XYZ benchmark is a reusable foundation for assessing and improving diff handling in LLMs that can aid future development of diff formats and models editing code. The dataset is published on HuggingFace Hub: https://huggingface.co/datasets/JetBrains-Research/diff-xyz.

The statistical distribution of content uploaded and searched on media sharing sites changes over time due to seasonal, sociological and technical factors. We investigate the impact of this "content drift" for large-scale similarity search tools, based on nearest neighbor search in embedding space. Unless a costly index reconstruction is performed frequently, content drift degrades the search accuracy and efficiency. The degradation is especially severe since, in general, both the query and database distributions change. We introduce and analyze real-world image and video datasets for which temporal information is available over a long time period. Based on the learnings, we devise DeDrift, a method that updates embedding quantizers to continuously adapt large-scale indexing structures on-the-fly. DeDrift almost eliminates the accuracy degradation due to the query and database content drift while being up to 100x faster than a full index reconstruction.

We study the problem of (learning) algorithm comparison, where the goal is to find differences between models trained with two different learning algorithms. We begin by formalizing this goal as one of finding distinguishing feature transformations, i.e., input transformations that change the predictions of models trained with one learning algorithm but not the other. We then present ModelDiff, a method that leverages the datamodels framework (Ilyas et al., 2022) to compare learning algorithms based on how they use their training data. We demonstrate ModelDiff through three case studies, comparing models trained with/without data augmentation, with/without pre-training, and with different SGD hyperparameters. Our code is available at https://github.com/MadryLab/modeldiff .

To make an engaging video, people sequence interesting moments and add visuals such as B-rolls or text. While video editing requires time and effort, AI has recently shown strong potential to make editing easier through suggestions and automation. A key strength of generative models is their ability to quickly generate multiple variations, but when provided with many alternatives, creators struggle to compare them to find the best fit. We propose VideoDiff, an AI video editing tool designed for editing with alternatives. With VideoDiff, creators can generate and review multiple AI recommendations for each editing process: creating a rough cut, inserting B-rolls, and adding text effects. VideoDiff simplifies comparisons by aligning videos and highlighting differences through timelines, transcripts, and video previews. Creators have the flexibility to regenerate and refine AI suggestions as they compare alternatives. Our study participants (N=12) could easily compare and customize alternatives, creating more satisfying results.

AI coding agents are increasingly acting as autonomous contributors by generating and submitting pull requests (PRs). However, we lack empirical evidence on how these agent-generated PRs differ from human contributions, particularly in how they modify code and describe their changes. Understanding these differences is essential for assessing their reliability and impact on development workflows. Using the MSR 2026 Mining Challenge version of the AIDev dataset, we analyze 24,014 merged Agentic PRs (440,295 commits) and 5,081 merged Human PRs (23,242 commits). We examine additions, deletions, commits, and files touched, and evaluate the consistency between PR descriptions and their diffs using lexical and semantic similarity. Agentic PRs differ substantially from Human PRs in commit count (Cliff's δ= 0.5429) and show moderate differences in files touched and deleted lines. They also exhibit slightly higher description-to-diff similarity across all measures. These findings provide a large-scale empirical characterization of how AI coding agents contribute to open source development.

In computer vision, Image Difference Captioning (IDC) is crucial for accurately describing variations between closely related images. Traditional IDC methods often rely on specialist models, which restrict their applicability across varied contexts. This paper introduces the OneDiff model, a novel generalist approach that utilizes a robust vision-language model architecture, integrating a siamese image encoder with a Visual Delta Module. This innovative configuration allows for the precise detection and articulation of fine-grained differences between image pairs. OneDiff is trained through a dual-phase strategy, encompassing Coupled Sample Training and multi-task learning across a diverse array of data types, supported by our newly developed DiffCap Dataset. This dataset merges real-world and synthetic data, enhancing the training process and bolstering the model's robustness. Extensive testing on diverse IDC benchmarks, such as Spot-the-Diff, Image-Editing-Request, and Birds-to-Words, shows that OneDiff consistently outperforms existing state-of-the-art models in accuracy and adaptability, achieving improvements of up to 97% CIDEr points in average. By setting a new benchmark in IDC, OneDiff paves the way for more versatile and effective applications in detecting and describing visual differences. The code, models, and data will be made publicly available.