Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv · 2610.14444

Taylor-Approximation-Based Repair of High Floating-Point Errors

Abstract

Numerical libraries can still lose many bits of accuracy on localized ill-conditioned inputs, such as roots, poles, cancellation points, and branch boundaries. This paper presents NPTaylor, a Taylor-approximation-based framework for repairing localized high floating-point errors in numerical C routines. Given a high-error input, a localized repair domain, a high-precision oracle, and an error threshold, NPTaylor searches over Taylor degree, expansion center, segmentation, and floating-point evaluation strategy. It emits guarded C patches that use a generated Taylor evaluator inside the repair domain and fall back to the original routine outside it. Candidate patches are accepted only after validating the emitted C code on recorded local samples, guard endpoints, and the pre-repair peak input. The generated evaluator uses coefficient splitting and compensated Horner evaluation to reduce rounding error introduced by the patch itself. We evaluate NPTaylor on GSL benchmark workloads. On 38 one-input functions, both NPTaylor and AutoRNP repair all 114 configurations across three accuracy thresholds. NPTaylor is 3.33x faster by geometric-mean offline repair time and emits 0.162x as many C bytes. In the strictest setting, its median repair time is 3.74s versus 81.97s for AutoRNP. NPTaylor also repairs localized multi-input benchmark cases beyond AutoRNP's implemented one-input workflow. These results show that Taylor-based guarded patches can provide compact, efficient local repairs, while the claims remain validation-relative rather than full-domain proofs.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Xin Yi, Liqian Chen, Hengbiao Yu, Shangwen Wang, Tao Tang, Chun Huang, Xiaoguang Mao, Ji Wang. 2026-10-10. Taylor-Approximation-Based Repair of High Floating-Point Errors. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.14444

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Psychological Safety Framework in Pull-based Open Source Projects

Psychological safety (PS) refers to the belief that team members can speak up, ask questions, and make mistakes without fear of negative consequences. Although PS has been studied in traditional software teams, less is known about how it may appear in pull-based open-source software development, where contributors are self-directed and often collaborate voluntarily. This paper introduces a theory-informed framework for understanding how PS may be reflected in pull request (PR) interactions. We investigate the framework through a mixed-methods approach combining repository-based analysis and a survey of OSS contributors. First, we constructed a PS index using nine observable PR interaction indicators extracted from 60,685 PRs across 26 GitHub repositories. Second, we surveyed 57 OSS contributors about their perceived PS and experiences of corresponding PR interactions. All nine surveyed interaction indicators were significantly and positively associated with perceived PS. However, the repository-based index was not significantly associated with survey-reported PS. Contributors' open-ended responses further highlighted the importance of feedback quality, opportunities to participate, and how PR outcomes are interpreted. Together, our framework and mixed-methods findings provide initial insights into how PS may be reflected in PR interactions, highlighting the importance of both PR interaction patterns and contributors' experiences.

cs.SE↗

Structuring license permissiveness from pairwise comparisons

Licenses are legal instruments that inventors rely upon to protect the technologies they build and regulate how they are used---however, the nature of their authorship and selection implies that how they are interpreted, chosen, and enforced is largely unstructured. In practice, this makes it difficult to compare licenses at scale---when is one license considered more permissive than the other, and when are their terms incomparable to each other? Currently, there is a growing list of licenses that are introduced and used, yet no systematic way to study their relationships. This matters for platforms such as Hugging Face, GitHub, and the Python Package Index, where developers publish or build upon technologies that each have their own licenses. Using large language models (LLMs), we introduce methods for comparing licenses at scale: first, in a pairwise fashion to construct and validate a partial ordering based on permissiveness; and by drawing on existing taxonomies of software licenses. Then, we try to recover the structure with the Bradley-Terry model to see if permissiveness can be judged more cheaply and observe a loss of $\sim$20\%---and classify this loss to feature coverage. The former coupled with model rationale allows us to trace restrictiveness, and the latter allows us to understand license selection as a combination of shared provisions.

cs.SE↗

Repository and Issue Characteristics of Early GenAI Adopters on GitHub

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has introduced new forms of AI assistance into software development, but less is known about the repositories and issues of early adopters of GenAI tools. We study the repository and issue characteristics of early adopters who state interest in GenAI on their public profiles on GitHub by analyzing 531 early adopters, 100 of their repositories with AI-tool configuration files (ACFs), 100 matched control repositories without ACFs, and 370 issues from the two repository groups. Repositories with ACFs show modest distributional differences in selected README structural characteristics. They contain longer README files with more code blocks and include a license more often, while repositories without ACFs contain more external URLs. The category distributions of the two repository groups show weak evidence of a difference. Once GenAI relatedness is held fixed, we detect no difference in issue Type or Outcome between the two repository groups. Our data, collected from May to August 2025, record how early adopters developed software in Software Engineering 2.0, the stage in which developers use both AI assistants and autonomous AI agents. When these agents become the norm, later studies can compare their data with ours.

cs.SE↗