mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Towards Effectively Leveraging Execution Traces for Program Repair with Code LLMs

arXiv 2505.04441 ↗First posted 7 May 2025cs.LG cs.SEcited by 11

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

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.

Key facts. Cited by 11 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 7 of its 18 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 May 2025.

Builds on

7 of 18 references.

References · 7

  1. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
  2. 2023Teaching Large Language Models to Self-Debugcited by 963
  3. 2022UniXcoder: Unified Cross-Modal Pre-training for Code Representationcited by 355
  4. 2021CodeNet: A Large-Scale AI for Code Dataset for Learning a Diversity of Coding Taskscited by 199
  5. 2023Embrace Divergence for Richer Insights: A Multi-document Summarization Benchmark and a Case Study on Summarizing Diverse Information from News Articlescited by 45
  6. 2022SelfAPR: Self-supervised Program Repair with Test Execution Diagnosticscited by 33
  7. 2023TRACED: Execution-aware Pre-training for Source Codecited by 27

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 4; 2026: 7.

11 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025A Survey of LLM-based Automated Program Repair: Taxonomies, Design Paradigms, and Applications
  2. 2025Do Code Semantics Help? A Comprehensive Study on Execution Trace-Based Information for Code Large Language Models
  3. 2026Refine After Generation: Toward Correct and Concise Patches in LLM-based Program Repair
  4. 2025Accelerating Automatic Program Repair with Dual Retrieval-Augmented Fine-Tuning and Patch Generation on Large Language Models
  5. 2025The Art of Repair: Optimizing Iterative Program Repair with Instruction-Tuned Models
  6. 2024ThinkRepair: Self-Directed Automated Program Repair
  7. 2025FeedbackEval: A Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models in Feedback-Driven Code Repair Tasks
  8. 2025BloomAPR: A Bloom's Taxonomy-based Framework for Assessing the Capabilities of LLM-Powered APR Solutions