arXiv:2606. 08840v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Code generation models are typically compared using compact execution benchmarks and aggregate pass rates, but such summaries obscure how performance varies across programming languages, problem families, and failure modes.
By Sayed Erfan Arefin
arXiv:2510. 09595v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Competitive programming problems are increasingly used to evaluate the coding capabilities of large language models (LLMs) due to their complexity and ease of verification.
By Kaijian Zou, Aaron Xiong, Yunxiang Zhang, Frederick Zhang, Yueqi Ren, Jirong Yang, Ayoung Lee, Shitanshu Bhushan, Lu Wang
The paper introduces RobustTests, a framework that improves reinforcement learning for code generation by synthesizing test cases from faulty code and refining rewards with a dense, stepwise function. It uses validator agents and behavioral clustering to filter out invalid or redundant tests, and incorporates pass‑rate‑based rewards to counter hallucination noise. Experiments on CodeContests and LiveCodeBench show that fine‑tuning Qwen3‑32B with RobustTests yields a 3% absolute performance gain over baseline methods.
By Yiwen Zhang, Xiaodong Yan, Zhenyu Huang, Deng Zhao, Liang Jiang, Qing Cui, Zujie Wen, Zhiqiang Zhang, Jun Zhou
The paper investigates how large language models (LLMs) handle bug fixing versus problem solving in competitive programming. Using a dataset of ~3,000 Codeforces submissions and their human fixes, the authors compare LLM-generated patches to human patches and assess whether LLMs prefer to modify buggy code or generate new solutions. Results show that LLMs often alter more lines than necessary and sometimes produce entirely new solutions, performing better when allowed to generate solutions from scratch rather than patching existing code.
By Alexandru Stefan Stoica, Traian Rebedea, Marian Cristian Mihaescu
The paper investigates how Large Language Models (LLMs) handle bug fixing compared to human-written patches by analyzing about 3,000 Codeforces submissions. It finds that LLMs often modify more lines than necessary and sometimes produce entirely new solutions, and that they solve more problems correctly when generating solutions from scratch rather than patching existing code. The study highlights implications for AI‑assisted programming tools, suggesting a shift toward incremental problem‑solving strategies.
arXiv:2507. 22580v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Automated Program Repair (APR) seeks to automatically correct software bugs without requiring human intervention.
By Marcos Fuster-Pena, David de-Fitero-Dominguez, Antonio Garcia-Cabot, Eva Garcia-Lopez