Inconsistencies in TeX-Produced Documents
Jovyn Tan, Manuel Rigger
Abstract
TeX is a widely-used typesetting system adopted by most publishers and professional societies. While TeX is responsible for generating a significant number of documents, irregularities in the TeX ecosystem may produce inconsistent documents. These inconsistencies may occur across different TeX engines or different versions of TeX distributions, resulting in failures to adhere to formatting specifications, or the same document rendering differently for different authors. In this work, we investigate and quantify the robustness of the TeX ecosystem through a large-scale study of 432 documents. We developed an automated pipeline to evaluate the cross-engine and cross-version compatibility of the TeX ecosystem. We found significant inconsistencies in the outputs of different TeX engines: only 0.2% of documents compiled to identical output with XeTeX and PDFTeX due to a lack of cross-engine support in popular LaTeX packages and classes used in academic conferences. A smaller—yet significant—extent of inconsistencies was found across different TeX Live distributions, with only 42.1% of documents producing the same output from 2020 to 2023. Our automated pipeline additionally reduces the human effort in bug-finding: from a sample of 10 unique root causes of inconsistencies, we identified two new bugs in LaTeX packages and five existing bugs that were fixed independently of this study. We also observed potentially unintended inconsistencies across different TeX Live distributions beyond the updates listed in changelogs. We expect that this study will help authors of TeX documents to avoid unexpected outcomes by understanding how they may be affected by the often undocumented subtleties of the TeX ecosystem, while benefiting developers by demonstrating how different implementations result in unintended inconsistencies.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 36dc8c1a-56df-495c-9362-61569853c6aeCited by top-tier papers1
Ask how each one uses itBuilds on10
- On the Reliability of Coverage-Based Fuzzer BenchmarkingMarcel Böhme, László Szekeres, Jonathan MetzmanICSE 2022 · 91 citations
- GrayC: Greybox Fuzzing of Compilers and Analysers for CKarine Even-Mendoza, Arindam Sharma, Alastair F. Donaldson, Cristian CadarISSTA 2023 · 52 citations
- Differential regression testing for REST APIsPatrice Godefroid, Daniel Lehmann, Marina PolishchukISSTA 2020 · 52 citations
- Finding bugs in Gremlin-based graph database systems via Randomized differential testingYingying Zheng, Wensheng Dou, Yicheng Wang, Zheng Qin et al.ISSTA 2022 · 36 citations
- Data-Oriented Differential Testing of Object-Relational Mapping SystemsThodoris Sotiropoulos, Stefanos Chaliasos, Vaggelis Atlidakis, Dimitris Mitropoulos et al.ICSE 2021 · 21 citations
Related papers
- Impact analysis of cross-project bugs on software ecosystemsWanwangying Ma, Lin Chen, Xiangyu Zhang, Yang Feng et al.ICSE 2020 · 18 citations
- An Empirical Study on Reproducible Packaging in Open-Source EcosystemsGiacomo Benedetti, Oreofe Solarin, Courtney Miller, Greg Tystahl et al.ICSE 2025 · 1 citation
- Discovering discrepancies in numerical librariesJackson Vanover, Xuan Deng, Cindy Rubio-GonzálezISSTA 2020 · 13 citations
- Janus: Detecting Rendering Bugs in Web Browsers via Visual Delta ConsistencyChijin Zhou, Quan Zhang, Bingzhou Qian, Yu JiangICSE 2025 · 2 citations
- A Study of Database Performance Sensitivity to Experiment SettingsYang Wang, Miao Yu, Yujie Hui, Fang Zhou et al.VLDB 2022 · 13 citations
