Unlocking LLM Code Correction with Iterative Feedback Loops

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.17514v1
• Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2026 04:47:42 GMT
• Title: Unlocking LLM Code Correction with Iterative Feedback Loops
• Abstract summary: This study introduces metrics to evaluate code failures, analyze rectification patterns, and compare the effectiveness of reasoning and non-reasoning models.<n>Results show that reasoning models consistently improve over iterations, substantially outperforming non-reasoning models in leveraging feedback.
• Score: 5.504955093712013
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models have shown remarkable capabilities in code generation. However, most existing evaluations focus only on single-attempt accuracy and overlook the iterative refinement process that is central to real-world programming. This study presents a systematic investigation of LLMs' ability to rectify their own code through execution feedback. Using real-world programming problems across four models and two major programming languages, this study evaluates performance using iterative refinement framework where LLMs receive compiler error messages and testcase feedback after each attempt. This study introduces metrics to evaluate code failures, analyze rectification patterns, and compare the effectiveness of reasoning and non-reasoning models, offering actionable insights into both the understanding and practical application of feedback loops in LLM-driven code generation systems. Results show that reasoning models consistently improve over iterations, substantially outperforming non-reasoning models in leveraging feedback, while syntactic and runtime errors are far more tractable than logical or algorithmic failures.

Related papers

• Beyond the Traceback: Using LLMs for Adaptive Explanations of Programming Errors [52.619793817715326]
  We present a multi-stage crowdsourced study evaluating skill-targeted, LLM-generated Python error messages.<n>We show that while LLM-rewritten messages significantly improved subjective evaluations, these perceived gains did not translate into statistically significant improvements in objective debug performance.<n>This highlights a critical human-AI complementarity gap: explanations that feel better to users do not necessarily make them more effective debuggers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-21T09:14:28Z)
• PROBE: Benchmarking Code Generation in Large Language Models [0.8921166277011344]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being used in everyday software engineering tasks.<n>LLMs are far from perfect, making evaluation essential to understand their strengths and limitations.<n>We introduce PROBE, a benchmark framework that establishes a systematic structure built on diverse and well-defined metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-15T13:28:18Z)
• LLMLOOP: Improving LLM-Generated Code and Tests through Automated Iterative Feedback Loops [4.056039458255759]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are showing remarkable performance in generating source code.<n>Yet the generated code often has issues like compilation errors or incorrect code.<n>This paper presents LLMLOOP, a framework that automates the refinement of both source code and test cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-24T18:01:14Z)
• From Restructuring to Stabilization: A Large-Scale Experiment on Iterative Code Readability Refactoring with Large Language Models [5.31828955342405]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for automated code tasks.<n>This article systematically study the capabilities of LLMs for code readability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-25T12:05:25Z)
• Readability-Robust Code Summarization via Meta Curriculum Learning [53.44612630063336]
  In the real world, code is often poorly structured or obfuscated, significantly degrading model performance.<n>We propose RoFTCodeSum, a novel fine-tuning method that enhances the robustness of code summarization against poorly readable code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-09T02:38:24Z)
• Holistic Evaluation of State-of-the-Art LLMs for Code Generation [5.504955093712013]
  DeepSeek-R1 and GPT-4.1 consistently outperform others in terms of correctness, efficiency, and robustness.<n>We identify common failure scenarios such as syntax errors, logical flaws, and suboptimal algorithms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-19T23:29:05Z)
• Automated Refactoring of Non-Idiomatic Python Code: A Differentiated Replication with LLMs [54.309127753635366]
  We present the results of a replication study in which we investigate GPT-4 effectiveness in recommending and suggesting idiomatic actions.<n>Our findings underscore the potential of LLMs to achieve tasks where, in the past, implementing recommenders based on complex code analyses was required.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-28T15:41:54Z)
• Improving LLM Reasoning through Scaling Inference Computation with Collaborative Verification [52.095460362197336]
  Large language models (LLMs) struggle with consistent and accurate reasoning. LLMs are trained primarily on correct solutions, reducing their ability to detect and learn from errors. We propose a novel collaborative method integrating Chain-of-Thought (CoT) and Program-of-Thought (PoT) solutions for verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-05T05:21:48Z)
• What's Wrong with Your Code Generated by Large Language Models? An Extensive Study [92.62952504133926]
  This study evaluated the performance of three leading closed-source LLMs and six popular open-source LLMs on three commonly used benchmarks.<n>We developed a taxonomy of bugs for incorrect codes and analyzed the root cause for common bug types.<n>We propose a novel training-free iterative method that introduces self-critique, enabling LLMs to critique and correct their generated code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-08T17:27:17Z)
• Automating Patch Set Generation from Code Review Comments Using Large Language Models [2.045040820541428]
  We provide code contexts to five popular Large Language Models (LLMs) We obtain the suggested code-changes (patch sets) derived from real-world code-review comments. The performance of each model is meticulously assessed by comparing their generated patch sets against the historical data of human-generated patch-sets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-10T02:46:08Z)
• Reasoning Runtime Behavior of a Program with LLM: How Far Are We? [25.451857140926943]
  Large language models for code (i.e., code LLMs) have shown strong code understanding and generation capabilities. Code reasoning is one of the most essential abilities of code LLMs. We propose a framework, namely REval, for evaluating code reasoning abilities and consistency of code LLMs with program execution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-25T05:37:16Z)
• CRITIC: Large Language Models Can Self-Correct with Tool-Interactive Critiquing [139.77117915309023]
  CRITIC allows large language models to validate and amend their own outputs in a manner similar to human interaction with tools. Comprehensive evaluations involving free-form question answering, mathematical program synthesis, and toxicity reduction demonstrate that CRITIC consistently enhances the performance of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-19T15:19:44Z)

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.