Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Towards Effectively Leveraging Execution Traces for Program Repair with Code LLMs

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2505.04441 v1 pith:FBE23ELN submitted 2025-05-07 cs.LG cs.SE

Towards Effectively Leveraging Execution Traces for Program Repair with Code LLMs

classification cs.LG cs.SE
keywords tracesexecutionpromptsllmsprogramdatasetleveraginglimited
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) show promising performance on various programming tasks, including Automatic Program Repair (APR). However, most approaches to LLM-based APR are limited to the static analysis of the programs, while disregarding their runtime behavior. Inspired by knowledge-augmented NLP, in this work, we aim to remedy this potential blind spot by augmenting standard APR prompts with program execution traces. We evaluate our approach using the GPT family of models on three popular APR datasets. Our findings suggest that simply incorporating execution traces into the prompt provides a limited performance improvement over trace-free baselines, in only 2 out of 6 tested dataset / model configurations. We further find that the effectiveness of execution traces for APR diminishes as their complexity increases. We explore several strategies for leveraging traces in prompts and demonstrate that LLM-optimized prompts help outperform trace-free prompts more consistently. Additionally, we show trace-based prompting to be superior to finetuning a smaller LLM on a small-scale dataset; and conduct probing studies reinforcing the notion that execution traces can complement the reasoning abilities of the LLMs.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. DynaFix: Iterative Automated Program Repair Driven by Execution-Level Dynamic Information

    cs.SE 2025-12 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    DynaFix iteratively feeds execution-level dynamic information such as variable states and control flows into LLM prompts to repair 186 bugs on Defects4J, a 10% gain over baselines including 38 previously unrepaired cases.

  2. ConVer: Using Contracts and Loop Invariant Synthesis for Scalable Formal Software Verification

    cs.SE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    ConVer decomposes C program verification top-down by synthesizing contracts with LLMs and refining them in a CEGAR-CEGIS loop, reporting 82-96% success on simple benchmarks and lower rates on harder suites.

  3. ReLog: Execution-Aware Logging with Runtime Feedback for LLM-Oriented Debugging

    cs.SE 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0

    ReLog iteratively writes and rewrites logging statements guided by runtime feedback, and its logs beat static logging baselines on Defects4J debugging tasks.