Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study investigates the efficacy of fault localization in test-guided code repair by comparing three approaches: blind whole-solution resampling, spectrum-based localization with suspect-span infilling, and random-span infilling. The results reveal that only 9% of failing candidates provide usable localization, and localized infilling significantly underperforms compared to blind resampling, contradicting initial hypotheses. Additionally, while localized infilling shows some pooled advantage over random-span attempts, this effect lacks robustness across individual models, suggesting that the benefits of localization may be limited.
Localization in code repair is often ineffective, with blind resampling outperforming targeted edits despite initial expectations.
Fault localization can focus a code model's repair on the statements a failing test implicates, but a targeted edit may succeed merely because it is small, and a second model call may succeed without using the failure at all. We separate these explanations with three arms applied to the same failed candidate: blind whole-solution resampling, spectrum-based localization followed by suspect-span infilling, and same-length infilling at a disjoint random code span. Across three frozen 26-32B models, three benchmarks and 488 failing candidates, plus a separately declared 24B fourth model from a third family, three results follow. First, localization is rarely available: only 9.0% of failing candidates expose a failing public test with a usable spectrum. Second, among the 177 candidates localizable from a strong suite, localized infilling loses decisively to blind resampling at a matched attempt count (3:40, p = 3.0 x 10^-9), opposite to our hypothesis; the loss replicates in a third family at -11.3 points (95% CI [-16.6, -6.8]), and widening the edit does not rescue it. Third, against the random-span placebo localized infilling leads pooled (11:1, Holm-adjusted p = .019), but that lead resolves in no individual model under the analysis our shipped plan designates primary (best Holm p = .087), so we report the location effect as suggestive rather than established. Re-pricing attempts as tokens narrows but does not overturn this: a span attempt spends 21.7 generated tokens against 371.1, yet 16 localized attempts reach 6.8% while one blind attempt already reaches 10.1%. Infilling reproduces the removed span verbatim in 48.9% of attempts, which is why more budget does not help. We restrict every localization conclusion to the 24-32B models tested.