From Program Slices to Causal Clarity: Evaluating Faithful, Actionable LLM-Generated Failure Explanations via Context Partitioning and LLM-as-a-Judge

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.18309v1
• Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2026 14:16:39 GMT
• Title: From Program Slices to Causal Clarity: Evaluating Faithful, Actionable LLM-Generated Failure Explanations via Context Partitioning and LLM-as-a-Judge
• Abstract summary: Misleading explanations are harmful for downstream tasks (e.g., bug triage, bug fixing)<n>We investigate how explanation quality is affected by various context configurations.
• Score: 0.2230291569252836
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large language model (LLM)-based debugging systems can generate failure explanations, but these explanations may be incomplete or incorrect. Misleading explanations are harmful for downstream tasks (e.g., bug triage, bug fixing). We investigate how explanation quality is affected by various LLM context configurations. Existing work predominantly treats LLM-generated failure explanations as an ad hoc by-product of debugging or repair workflows, using generic prompting over undifferentiated artifacts such as code, tests, and error messages rather than targeting explanations as a first-class output with dedicated quality assessment. Consequently, existing approaches provide limited support for assessing whether these explanations capture the underlying fault-error-failure mechanism and for actionable next steps, and most techniques instead prioritize task success (e.g., patch correctness or review quality) over the explicit causal explanation quality. We systematically vary the debugging information to study how distinct context compositions affect the quality of LLM-generated failure explanations. Across 93 context configurations on real bugs and three economically viable models (gpt-5-mini, DeepSeek-V3.2, and Grok-4.1-fast), we evaluate explanations with six criteria and validate the LLM-as-a-judge scores against human ratings in a user study. Our results indicate that explanation quality is causally affected by context composition. Evidence-rich, failure-specific artifacts improve causal and action-oriented quality, whereas overly large contexts tend to yield vague explanations. Higher explanation-score quartiles are associated with higher downstream repair pass rates and, for some models, with fixes that are closer to the reference minimal fixes. In contrast, low-score quartiles can even underperform the no-explanation baseline. Reproduction package is publicly available.

Related papers

• LiveFMBench: Unveiling the Power and Limits of Agentic Workflows in Specification Generation [75.05397479715576]
  Large language models (LLMs) and agents have shown promising progress, but their true capabilities and failure modes remain unclear.<n>We present the first systematic and contamination-aware study of LLM- and agent-based formal specification generation for C programs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-02T11:31:33Z)
• METER: Evaluating Multi-Level Contextual Causal Reasoning in Large Language Models [61.33372454250959]
  Contextual causal reasoning is a critical yet challenging capability for Large Language Models.<n>Existing benchmarks fail to ensure context consistency or cover the full causal hierarchy.<n>We pioneer METER to systematically benchmark LLMs across all three levels of the causal ladder.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-13T14:07:11Z)
• From Early Encoding to Late Suppression: Interpreting LLMs on Character Counting Tasks [49.57538588967748]
  Large language models (LLMs) exhibit failures on elementary symbolic tasks such as character counting in a word, despite excelling on complex benchmarks.<n>We uncover a consistent phenomenon across modern architectures, including LLaMA, Qwen, and Gemma.<n>We show that symbolic reasoning failures in LLMs are not due to missing representations or insufficient scale, but arise from structured interference within the model's computation graph.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-01T11:40:12Z)
• Reviewing the Reviewer: Elevating Peer Review Quality through LLM-Guided Feedback [75.31379834079648]
  We introduce an LLM-driven framework that decomposes reviews into argumentative segments.<n>We also release LazyReviewPlus, a dataset of 1,309 sentences labeled for lazy thinking and specificity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-17T20:32:18Z)
• Understanding and Mitigating Errors of LLM-Generated RTL Code [7.747889860813149]
  Large language model (LLM) based register-transfer-level (RTL) code generation is promising but the overall success rate remains unsatisfactory.<n>We conduct a comprehensive error analysis and manual categorization.<n>Our findings reveal that most errors stem from insufficient RTL programming knowledge, poor understanding of circuit concepts, or misinterpretation of complex multimodal inputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-07T11:02:32Z)
• MQM-APE: Toward High-Quality Error Annotation Predictors with Automatic Post-Editing in LLM Translation Evaluators [53.91199933655421]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown significant potential as judges for Machine Translation (MT) quality assessment.<n>We introduce a universal and training-free framework, $textbfMQM-APE, based on the idea of filtering out non-impactful errors.<n>Experiments show that our approach consistently improves both the reliability and quality of error spans against GEMBA-MQM.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-22T06:43:40Z)
• Can Language Models Explain Their Own Classification Behavior? [1.8177391253202122]
  Large language models (LLMs) perform well at a myriad of tasks, but explaining the processes behind this performance is a challenge. This paper investigates whether LLMs can give faithful high-level explanations of their own internal processes. We release our dataset, ArticulateRules, which can be used to test self-explanation for LLMs trained either in-context or by finetuning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-13T02:31:08Z)
• Demystifying Faulty Code with LLM: Step-by-Step Reasoning for Explainable Fault Localization [5.7821087202452]
  This study investigates the step-by-step reasoning for explainable fault localization. We created a dataset of faulty code files, along with explanations for 600 faulty lines. We found that for 22 out of the 30 randomly sampled cases, FuseFL generated correct explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-15T17:47:20Z)
• LLMRefine: Pinpointing and Refining Large Language Models via Fine-Grained Actionable Feedback [65.84061725174269]
  Recent large language models (LLM) are leveraging human feedback to improve their generation quality. We propose LLMRefine, an inference time optimization method to refine LLM's output. We conduct experiments on three text generation tasks, including machine translation, long-form question answering (QA), and topical summarization. LLMRefine consistently outperforms all baseline approaches, achieving improvements up to 1.7 MetricX points on translation tasks, 8.1 ROUGE-L on ASQA, 2.2 ROUGE-L on topical summarization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T19:52:11Z)
• Explanations from Large Language Models Make Small Reasoners Better [61.991772773700006]
  We show that our method can consistently and significantly outperform finetuning baselines across different settings. As a side benefit, human evaluation shows that our method can generate high-quality explanations to justify its predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-13T04:50:02Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.