
2025-09-03 08:55:43
Pattern formation in a coupled driven diffusive system
G. E. Freire Oliveira, R. Dickman, M. O. Lavrentovich, R. K. P. Zia
https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.00220 https://
Pattern formation in a coupled driven diffusive system
G. E. Freire Oliveira, R. Dickman, M. O. Lavrentovich, R. K. P. Zia
https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.00220 https://
From Density Functional Theory to Spin Hamiltonians: Magnetism in $d^5$ Honeycomb Compound OsCl$_3$
Ritwik Das, Indra Dasgupta
https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.22279
Strain-Controlled Topological Phase Transitions and Chern Number Reversal in Two-Dimensional Altermagnets
Zesen Fu, Mengli Hu, Aolin Li, Haiming Duan, Junwei Liu, Fangping Ouyang
https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.22474
Phonons Drive the Topological Phase Transition in Quasi-One-Dimensional Bi$_4$I$_4$
Wenjie Hu, Jiayi Gong, Yuhui Qiu, Lexian Yang, Jin-Jian Zhou, Yugui Yao
https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.17268
The effect of droplet configurations within the Functional Renormalization Group of low-dimensional Ising models
Ivan Balog, Lucija Nora Farka\v{s}, Maroje Marohni\'c, Gilles Tarjus
https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.23415
Laboratory observation of internal gravity wave turbulence in a three-dimensional, large-scale facility
Nicolas Lanchon, Samuel Boury, Pierre-Philippe Cortet
https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.19792
Sense of Belonging and Intent to Persist: Mediating Role of Motivation and Moderating Role of Gender in Physics and Astronomy Graduate Students
Swagata Sarkar, N. Sanjay Rebello
https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.20948
Synaptic bundle theory for spike-driven sensor-motor system: More than eight independent synaptic bundles collapse reward-STDP learning
Takeshi Kobayashi, Shogo Yonekura, Yasuo Kuniyoshi
https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.14492
LLM coding is the opposite of DRY
An important principle in software engineering is DRY: Don't Repeat Yourself. We recognize that having the same code copied in more than one place is bad for several reasons:
1. It makes the entire codebase harder to read.
2. It increases maintenance burden, since any problems in the duplicated code need to be solved in more than one place.
3. Because it becomes possible for the copies to drift apart if changes to one aren't transferred to the other (maybe the person making the change has forgotten there was a copy) it makes the code more error-prone and harder to debug.
All modern programming languages make it almost entirely unnecessary to repeat code: we can move the repeated code into a "function" or "module" and then reference it from all the different places it's needed. At a larger scale, someone might write an open-source "library" of such functions or modules and instead of re-implementing that functionality ourselves, we can use their code, with an acknowledgement. Using another person's library this way is complicated, because now you're dependent on them: if they stop maintaining it or introduce bugs, you've inherited a problem, but still, you could always copy their project and maintain your own version, and it would be not much more work than if you had implemented stuff yourself from the start. It's a little more complicated than this, but the basic principle holds, and it's a foundational one for software development in general and the open-source movement in particular. The network of "citations" as open-source software builds on other open-source software and people contribute patches to each others' projects is a lot of what makes the movement into a community, and it can lead to collaborations that drive further development. So the DRY principle is important at both small and large scales.
Unfortunately, the current crop of hyped-up LLM coding systems from the big players are antithetical to DRY at all scales:
- At the library scale, they train on open source software but then (with some unknown frequency) replicate parts of it line-for-line *without* any citation [1]. The person who was using the LLM has no way of knowing that this happened, or even any way to check for it. In theory the LLM company could build a system for this, but it's not likely to be profitable unless the courts actually start punishing these license violations, which doesn't seem likely based on results so far and the difficulty of finding out that the violations are happening. By creating these copies (and also mash-ups, along with lots of less-problematic stuff), the LLM users (enabled and encouraged by the LLM-peddlers) are directly undermining the DRY principle. If we see what the big AI companies claim to want, which is a massive shift towards machine-authored code, DRY at the library scale will effectively be dead, with each new project simply re-implementing the functionality it needs instead of every using a library. This might seem to have some upside, since dependency hell is a thing, but the downside in terms of comprehensibility and therefore maintainability, correctness, and security will be massive. The eventual lack of new high-quality DRY-respecting code to train the models on will only make this problem worse.
- At the module & function level, AI is probably prone to re-writing rather than re-using the functions or needs, especially with a workflow where a human prompts it for many independent completions. This part I don't have direct evidence for, since I don't use LLM coding models myself except in very specific circumstances because it's not generally ethical to do so. I do know that when it tries to call existing functions, it often guesses incorrectly about the parameters they need, which I'm sure is a headache and source of bugs for the vibe coders out there. An AI could be designed to take more context into account and use existing lookup tools to get accurate function signatures and use them when generating function calls, but even though that would probably significantly improve output quality, I suspect it's the kind of thing that would be seen as too-baroque and thus not a priority. Would love to hear I'm wrong about any of this, but I suspect the consequences are that any medium-or-larger sized codebase written with LLM tools will have significant bloat from duplicate functionality, and will have places where better use of existing libraries would have made the code simpler. At a fundamental level, a principle like DRY is not something that current LLM training techniques are able to learn, and while they can imitate it from their training sets to some degree when asked for large amounts of code, when prompted for many smaller chunks, they're asymptotically likely to violate it.
I think this is an important critique in part because it cuts against the argument that "LLMs are the modern compliers, if you reject them you're just like the people who wanted to keep hand-writing assembly code, and you'll be just as obsolete." Compilers actually represented a great win for abstraction, encapsulation, and DRY in general, and they supported and are integral to open source development, whereas LLMs are set to do the opposite.
[1] to see what this looks like in action in prose, see the example on page 30 of the NYTimes copyright complaint against OpenAI (#AI #GenAI #LLMs #VibeCoding
From Theory to Practice: Advancing Multi-Robot Path Planning Algorithms and Applications
Teng Guo
https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.09914 https://
Hydrodynamic instabilities in driven chiral suspensions
Seema Chahal, Brato Chakrabarti
https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.17879 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2508.17879…
Systematics from NICER Pulse Profiles Drive Uncertainty in Multi-Messenger Inference of the Neutron Star Equation of State
Bhaskar Biswas, Prasanta Char
https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.12540
Rotation Errors Due to Field Quantization for Simultaneously Driven Atoms
Hunter Lindemann, Shanon Vuglar, Julio Gea-Banacloche
https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.06769 https://
Interfacial instability of confined 3D active droplets
Bennett C. Sessa, Federico Cao, Robert A. Pelcovits, Thomas R. Powers, Guillaume Duclos
https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.17532
Synchronous polarization switching at sub-coercive fields through stochastic resonance in ferroelectric thin-film capacitors
Vivek Dey, Thejas Basavarajappa, Manikantan R. S., Kevin Renji Jacob, Jonnalagadda Nikhila, Arvind Ajoy, Pavan Nukala
https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.12017
This https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.00194 has been replaced.
initial toot: https://mastoxiv.page/@arXiv_qbi…
A microscopically reversible kinetic theory of flocking
Ruben Lier
https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.09274 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2508.09274
Dynamic Coupling of Infiltration-Soil Moisture Feedback:Emergent Vegetation Patterns in a Water-Vegetation Model
Juan Yan, Xiaoli Wang, Guohong Zhang, Yuan Yuan
https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.01755
Observation of Momentum-Band Topology in PT-Symmetric acoustic Floquet Lattices
Shuaishuai Tong, Qicheng Zhang, Gaohan Li, Kun Zhang, Chun Xie, Chunyin Qiu
https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.04068
Phase transitions induced by resonant light: a phenomenological approach
A. Kudlis, L. S. Ricco, H. Sigur{\dh}sson, I. A. Shelykh
https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.05964