analiza aiqbench
This research investigates whether Large Language Models genuinely patch buggy code or simply discard it to generate new solutions from scratch, revealing a tendency toward unnecessary reimplementation rather than minimal edits. The study finds that LLMs often solve problems more effectively when generating fresh code instead of modifying existing submissions, even when the original bug is close to being fixed by a human. These findings highlight critical implications for designing AI-assisted development tools that must balance efficient debugging with preserving user intent and incremental progress.
Large Language Models for Programming: Actually Fixing or Reimplementing Incorrect Code?
arXiv:2609.29410v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Recent studies have shown that Large Language Models can effectively solve problems and fix bugs in diverse programming environments, including competitive programming. Existing approaches primarily evaluate LLM performance in problem solving or bug fixing independently, but do not explore the relationship between these two capabilities. This work focuses on determining how much the LLM deviates from a buggy solution to fix the bug compared to a human-written patch, and if there is a bias towards generating entirely new solutions. We construct a dataset with all the submissions ($\sim$ 3000) from a couple of users from Codeforces, and we match each buggy submission with its corresponding human fix. By using the similarity between the buggy solution and the human fix as a baseline, we evaluate the quality of LLM-generated bug fixes on 3 OpenAI GPT models (gpt-5-nano, gpt-5-mini, gpt-5.1). We check if the generated solutions solve the problem by using the Codeforces-R1 dataset, an openly available dataset that has tests generated with the DeepSeek-R1 model. Our findings suggest that LLMs tend to modify more lines than necessary compared to human fixes and, in some cases, generate entirely new solutions. We also observe that LLMs solve more problems correctly when allowed to generate solutions from scratch rather than patch buggy submissions, even when those submissions are close to the human patch. This has important implications for the design of AI-assisted programming tools, particularly in supporting user debugging processes and promoting incremental problem-solving strategies rather than solution replacement.
Title:Large Language Models for Programming: Actually Fixing or Reimplementing Incorrect Code?
Abstract:Recent studies have shown that Large Language Models can effectively solve problems and fix bugs in diverse programming environments, including competitive programming. Existing approaches primarily evaluate LLM performance in problem solving or bug fixing independently, but do not explore the relationship between these two capabilities. This work focuses on determining how much the LLM deviates from a buggy solution to fix the bug compared to a human-written patch, and if there is a bias towards generating entirely new solutions. We construct a dataset with all the submissions ($\sim$ 3000) from a couple of users from Codeforces, and we match each buggy submission with its corresponding human fix. By using the similarity between the buggy solution and the human fix as a baseline, we evaluate the quality of LLM-generated bug fixes on 3 OpenAI GPT models (gpt-5-nano, gpt-5-mini, gpt-5.1). We check if the generated solutions solve the problem by using the Codeforces-R1 dataset, an openly available dataset that has tests generated with the DeepSeek-R1 model. Our findings suggest that LLMs tend to modify more lines than necessary compared to human fixes and, in some cases, generate entirely new solutions. We also observe that LLMs solve more problems correctly when allowed to generate solutions from scratch rather than patch buggy submissions, even when those submissions are close to the human patch. This has important implications for the design of AI-assisted programming tools, particularly in supporting user debugging processes and promoting incremental problem-solving strategies rather than solution replacement.
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Software Engineering (cs.SE)
arXiv:2609.29410 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2609.29410v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.29410 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 354 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

Frontier Risk Report (February to March 2026)
METR · 19 mai 2026

Frontier AI Risk Report (February–March 2026)
METR · 19 mai 2026

Informe de riesgos de la IA de frontera (febrero–marzo de 2026)
METR · 19 mai 2026

Brief independent investigation of agents’ behavior, reasoning and collaboration in the OpenAI / Hugging Face hacking incident
METR · 26 aug. 2026