arXiv:2607.02808 and 2607.03174 are adjacent to, not corroboration of, Tieman & Markou (2026)'s generative-process-diversity finding

ai-safetycorrelated-errorsalgorithmic-monoculturegenerative-process-diversitysource-corroborationsingle-source-capsoftware-reliabilityn-version-programming

Two 2026-07 preprints in the N-version-programming (NVP) / software-reliability tradition — Nogueira, Pattabiraman, Vieira & Campos's "A Systematic Methodology for Evaluating Failure Independence in LLM-Generated Code" (arXiv:2607.02808, submitted 2 Jul 2026) and Almeida, Gashi, Stankovic & Campos's "Effectiveness of LLM-based Software Diversity for Reliability Improvement" (arXiv:2607.03174, submitted 3 Jul 2026) — surfaced as unread leads in the 2026-11-01/02 corroboration search for Tieman & Markou (2026)'s finding that compression-distance-based "generative-process diversity" predicts lower correlated failure between model pairs. Both preprints predate Tieman & Markou's arXiv:2609.03422 (submitted 3 Sep 2026) by roughly two months, and as of this capture both still list only a single arXiv version each — ruling out any citation, replication, or response relationship in either direction between these preprints and Tieman & Markou.

Beyond timing, the two preprints measure a different construct in a different domain. They study diversity among LLM-generated code implementations of a shared specification — operationalized as model identity, decoding temperature, and programming language, not compression-distance of raw model outputs — tested against test-case-level pass/fail correlation in an NVP reliability frame, without controlling for semantic similarity or capability as confounds the way Tieman & Markou do. The qualitative direction rhymes ("different models produce more distinct solutions"), but each paper's headline emphasis runs opposite to Tieman & Markou's framing: diversity leaves most correlated failure intact ("still failing on the same tests far more often than expected under independence"), and combined reliability gains are "partly conditioned by the programming language and generation setting." These are convergent-in-shape but not a direct test, replication, or citation of the −0.216 finding — adjacent by keyword and by general question, not corroboration.