arXiv AI By Anik Jha

Does Fault Localization Beat a Fresh Attempt? A Placebo-Controlled Study of Test-Guided Code Repair

Read the original on arXiv AI →

The study evaluates whether fault localization improves test‑guided code repair by comparing three approaches—blind whole‑solution resampling, spectrum‑based localized infilling, and random‑span infilling—across multiple large language models and benchmarks. Results show that localization is rarely available (only 9.0% of failing candidates), and when it is, localized infilling performs worse than blind resampling, with only suggestive evidence of a benefit over random spans. The findings suggest that targeted edits may not provide a consistent advantage over broader, untargeted repair attempts in current large‑model settings.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv Machine Learning
Jul 1

Calibration, Not Compilation: Detecting and Repairing Misspecified Probabilistic Programs Written by Language Models

arXiv:2606. 31630v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Language models increasingly write probabilistic programs (in NumPyro, Stan, or Pyro), but a program that compiles, runs, and passes every unit test can still be \emph{statistically} wrong -- a Gaussian likelihood for heavy-tailed data, a Poisson for over-dispersed counts, an invalid prior support, or a pathological parameterization.

By Jian Xu, Delu Zeng, John Paisley, Qibin Zhao
arXiv AI
1d ago

Accepted but Wrong: Silent Failures of LLM Code Repairs after API Migrations

The study examines how large language models (LLMs) repair code after runtime or API migrations, revealing that many repaired procedures run without errors yet produce incorrect results. Across 73 tasks and 60 documented changes in CPython, Node.js, and SQLite, the authors found that typical test inputs allowed 41% of wrong repairs to pass, while targeted edge inputs reduced this to 6–7%. Even with additional hard distractors and blind model writers, a significant fraction of incorrect repairs still passed the preregistered tests.

By Xiaobo Chen, Genliang Zhu, Ziyuan Wang, Chu Wang
arXiv Machine Learning
Oct 3

Refusal Localizes, the Damage Relocates: Safety Layers Under Few-Sample Fine-Tuning

The paper investigates how fine‑tuning large language models with a small number of harmful examples can erode their refusal behavior, and explores whether localizing safety‑related behavior to specific layers or directions can provide robust defenses. Experiments across six checkpoints from four model families show that harmful and benign prompts remain linearly separable after attack, and that patching clean hidden states or freezing layers up to a transition depth can restore refusal. However, attackers can bypass these defenses by spreading updates or targeting singular directions, indicating that adaptive fine‑tuning can defeat localized repairs and highlighting the need for multiple defensive checks.

By Jungseob Lee, Dongyub Jude Lee, Sugyeong Eo, Seongtae Hong, Seungyoon Lee, Heuiseok Lim
arXiv AI
Sep 4

It's the Problem, Not the Path: Budget and Difficulty Confounds in LLM Reasoning Trajectories

The paper investigates whether large language models’ reasoning traces truly contain early, informative signals or merely reflect budget and difficulty confounds. Using a restart‑controlled truncation probe, the authors compare continuation success rates against from‑scratch restart curves across 178 problem‑model pairs, finding that only one case shows prefix‑limited success and that continuing a model’s own prefix generally outperforms restarting. A difficulty‑controlled test and two generation‑free analyses reveal that early internal signals do not carry outcome information beyond a problem‑difficulty baseline, underscoring the need for proper counterfactual controls.

By Yigit Utku Bulut