Automated Feedback Generation for Competition-Level Code
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Competitive programming has become a popular way for programmers to test their skills. Large-scale online programming contests attract millions of experienced programmers to compete against each other. Competition-level programming problems are challenging in nature, and participants often fail to solve the problem on their first attempt. Some online platforms for competitive programming allow programmers to practice on competition-level problems as well, and the standard feedback for an incorrect practice submission is the first test case that the submission fails. Often, the failed test case does not provide programmers with enough information to resolve the errors in their code, and they abandon the problem after several more unsuccessful attempts. We present Clef, the first data-driven tool that can generate feedback on competition-level code automatically by repairing programmers' incorrect submissions. The key development is that Clef can learn how to generate repairs for incorrect submissions by examining the repairs that other programmers made to their own submissions over time. Since the differences between an incorrect program and a correct program for the same task may be significant, we introduce a new data structure, merge trees, to capture the changes between submissions. Merge trees are versatile: they can encode both large algorithm-level redesigns and small statement-level alterations. Clef applies the patterns it learns from a database of submissions to generate repairs for new submissions outside the database. We evaluated Clef on six real-world problems from Codeforces, the world's largest platform for competitive programming. Clef achieves 42.1% accuracy in repairing programmers' incorrect submissions. Even when given incorrect submissions from programmers who never found the solution to a problem on their own, Clef repairs the users' programs 34.1% of the time.
Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 3 Jun 2022.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2022: 1; 2023: 1; 2024: 2; 2025: 2; 2026: 1.
7 papers.
- 2024Debug like a Human: A Large Language Model Debugger via Verifying Runtime Execution Step-by-stepcited by 123
- 2022Repairing Bugs in Python Assignments Using Large Language Modelscited by 28
- 2023Toward Reproducing Network Research Results Using Large Language Modelscited by 3
- 2025A Comparative Study of Student Perspectives on Technical Writing Feedback Quality: Evaluating LLMs, SLMs, and Humans in Computer Science Topicscited by 1
- 2024Peer-aided Repairer: Empowering Large Language Models to Repair Advanced Student Assignmentscited by 0
- 2025ACE-RLHF: Automated Code Evaluation and Socratic Feedback Generation Tool using Large Language Models and Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedbackcited by 0
- 2026Fixed-Set Robustness in Programming by Example: Example Corruption and Semantic Partition Recoverycited by 0
- 2026Fixed-Set Robustness in Programming by Example: Example Corruption and Semantic Partition Recovery1 Jul 2026
- 2025A Comparative Study of Student Perspectives on Technical Writing Feedback Quality: Evaluating LLMs, SLMs, and Humans in Computer Science Topics1 Dec 2025
- 2025ACE-RLHF: Automated Code Evaluation and Socratic Feedback Generation Tool using Large Language Models and Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback7 Apr 2025
- 2024Peer-aided Repairer: Empowering Large Language Models to Repair Advanced Student Assignments2 Apr 2024
- 2024Debug like a Human: A Large Language Model Debugger via Verifying Runtime Execution Step-by-step25 Feb 2024
- 2023Toward Reproducing Network Research Results Using Large Language Models9 Sep 2023
- 2022Repairing Bugs in Python Assignments Using Large Language Models29 Sep 2022