Knowledge as Code

Martin Monperrus

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.27693

Knowledge as Code

Martin Monperrus

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

For millennia, knowledge has been carried by language, and large language models still put language at the center. Yet the coding agents built on these models mostly write code. This paper is a contribution to epistemology, which asks what kind of knowledge code is and how it is obtained. We define knowledge as code as knowledge written in a programming language or in a machine-parsable data format, whose validity can be checked by executing it. We define thirteen epistemic properties of knowledge media and show that code is the first medium to have all of them. We distinguish two ways in which knowledge enters code, encoding and learning by execution, where code is both the experiment and the record of its result. Agents make learning by execution observable, since their trajectories record every probe, observation and line of code they keep. Code is thus not only a tool of knowledge work but a knowledge medium in its own right, the first that can check what it holds.

Explore related subjects

cs.SE

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Martin Monperrus. 2026-10-20. Knowledge as Code. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.27693

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Mitigating Risks in Software Development through Effective Requirements Engineering

Problems that originate in requirements are common and expensive in software projects, and they are a recurring cause of late delivery, budget overruns and cancellation. This paper is a narrative overview of requirements engineering (RE) as a means of reducing these risks. It outlines the core RE activities (elicitation, analysis and negotiation, specification, validation and change management) and the kinds of statements a requirements document contains, including the distinction between requirements, domain properties, assumptions and definitions. It reviews the evidence on the cost of requirements defects, together with the main criticisms of that evidence, and compares how the waterfall, spiral, iterative (Rational Unified Process) and agile lifecycles treat requirements. It then discusses stakeholder identification, elicitation techniques and common obstacles to elicitation, and describes practical ways of turning vague or conflicting stakeholder statements, including security and performance expectations, into precise, verifiable and prioritized requirements. The paper is intended as an introduction for practitioners and students who work with requirements but are not RE specialists.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

WAFFLE: Finetuning Multi-Modal Models for Automated Front-End Development

Web development involves turning UI designs into functional webpages, which can be difficult for both beginners and experienced developers due to the complexity of HTML's hierarchical structures and styles. While Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in generating source code, two major challenges persist in UI-to-HTML code generation: (1) effectively representing HTML's hierarchical structure for LLMs, and (2) bridging the gap between the visual nature of UI designs and the text-based format of HTML code. To tackle these challenges, we introduce Waffle, a new fine-tuning strategy that uses a structure-aware attention mechanism to improve LLMs' understanding of HTML's structure and a contrastive fine-tuning approach to align LLMs' understanding of UI images and HTML code. Models fine-tuned with Waffle show up to 9.00 pp (percentage point) higher HTML match, 0.0982 higher CW-SSIM, 32.99 higher CLIP, and 27.12 pp higher LLEM on our new benchmark WebSight-Test and an existing benchmark Design2Code, outperforming current fine-tuning methods.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Can Language Models Replace Programmers for Coding? REPOCOD Says 'Not Yet'

Recently, a number of repository-level code generation benchmarks-such as CoderEval, DevEval, RepoEval, RepoBench, and LongCodeArena-have emerged to evaluate the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) beyond standalone benchmarks like HumanEval and MBPP. Thus, a natural question is, would LLMs have similar performance in real world coding tasks as their performance in these benchmarks? Unfortunately, one cannot answer this question, since these benchmarks consist of short completions, synthetic examples, or focus on limited scale repositories, failing to represent real-world coding tasks. To address these challenges, we create REPOCOD, a Python code-generation benchmark containing complex tasks with realistic dependencies in real-world large projects and appropriate metrics for evaluating source code. It includes 980 whole-function generation tasks from 11 popular projects, 50.8% of which require repository-level context. REPOCOD includes 314 developer-written test cases per instance for better evaluation. We evaluate ten LLMs on REPOCOD and find that none achieves more than 30% pass@1 on REPOCOD, indicating the necessity of building stronger LLMs that can help developers in real-world software development. In addition, we found that retrieval-augmented generation achieves better results than using target function dependencies as context.

cs.SE↗