arXiv (All)
open access
On the Limits of Execution Traces for Repairing Assertion Failures in LLM-Generated Code
Iterative repair returns a failed program's error to a large language model (LLM) and asks it to fix it. After iterative repair, the remaining failures are mostly assertion failures: with four Qwen2.5 models, they make up 79% of residual failures on BigCodeBench, all on HumanEval and 93% on LiveCode
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- On the Limits of Execution Traces for Repairing Assertion Failures in LLM-Generated Code#1598940
- Does Fault Localization Beat a Fresh Attempt? A Placebo-Controlled Study of Test-Guided Code Repair#820858
- Does Fault Localization Beat a Fresh Attempt? A Placebo-Controlled Study of Test-Guided Code Repair#627754
- From Reading Code to Reading Spec: A Verified Layer for LLM-Driven Codebase Maintenance#668138
- Validation Evidence in LLM Repair Agents: How Much of What Passes Actually Tests the Bug?#422333
Record · ID 1625366
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive