Papers › Benchmarking Educational Program Repair

Benchmarking Educational Program Repair

8 May 2024arXiv:2405.05347archive 2025-07-28

Charles Koutcheme, Nicola Dainese, Sami Sarsa, Juho Leinonen, Arto Hellas, Paul Denny

The emergence of large language models (LLMs) has sparked enormous interest due to their potential application across a range of educational tasks. For example, recent work in programming education has used LLMs to generate learning resources, improve error messages, and provide feedback on code. However, one factor that limits progress within the field is that much of the research uses bespoke datasets and different evaluation metrics, making direct comparisons between results unreliable. Thus, there is a pressing need for standardization and benchmarks that facilitate the equitable comparison of competing approaches. One task where LLMs show great promise is program repair, which can be used to provide debugging support and next-step hints to students. In this article, we propose a novel educational program repair benchmark. We curate two high-quality publicly available programming datasets, present a unified evaluation procedure introducing a novel evaluation metric rouge@k for approximating the quality of repairs, and evaluate a set of five recent models to establish baseline performance.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

13 samples harvested; 12 ran; 1 honoured the contract we drafted; 1 has no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 13 of the 13 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from koutchemecharles/gaied_nips23. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Tasks

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections