arXiv:2607. 12962v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Frozen small code LLMs are deployed locally, yet the information guiding a retry after a failed attempt is still measured without placebo controls in the self-repair literature.
By Mehmet Iscan
arXiv:2607. 26117v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Self-repair - returning a failed program to the model together with its test output and asking for a correction - is a standard component of code agents, and is almost always evaluated against a baseline that does not retry at all.
By Yuvraj Verma
arXiv:2606. 16999v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Frozen small code models ( =45.
By Mehmet Iscan
arXiv:2607. 28871v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: When a repair agent runs a test and sees it pass, the result is treated as evidence about the reported defect.
By Xiaonan Xu, Wenjing Wu
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.
By Anik Jha
arXiv:2607. 11022v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The test suites used as RLVR rewards for code have natural false positives: per-task, persistent, asymmetric errors that accept the same wrong programs every time they appear, unlike the symmetric or resampled noise assumed by existing noise-robustness analyses.
By Chuyifei Zhang