Unreliable in Practice? A Comprehensive Study of Errors in LLM-Generated Code

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.00661v1
• Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2026 13:31:42 GMT
• Title: Unreliable in Practice? A Comprehensive Study of Errors in LLM-Generated Code
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) are being widely used for coding, with reports indicating that AI now generates an increasing share of production code.<n>We analyzed a corpus of 86,726 code samples that contained compilation or runtime errors.<n>Results show that, although error types vary strongly across languages and models, even the largest models frequently make simple mistakes.
• Score: 0.8921166277011344
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are being widely used for coding, with reports indicating that AI now generates an increasing share of production code. Studies show that LLMs can significantly improve developer productivity, yet they still struggle with more complex coding tasks. Just as understanding error modes in human-written code has been central to improving software quality, identifying and characterizing the errors in LLM-generated code is critical for setting realistic expectations and designing mitigation strategies. Prior research has been limited in scope, often focusing on a single language, a small number of problems, or a limited selection of models. As a result, there is still no comprehensive understanding of which errors are common and which are specific to certain models or languages. To address these gaps and develop a deeper understanding of the quality of LLM-generated code, we analyzed a corpus of 86,726 code samples that contained compilation or runtime errors. These samples were generated by seven LLMs across four compiled languages. We classified errors by their underlying causes using an LLM, manually validated these classifications, and performed a comparative analysis. This labeled data is then used to measure error prevalence by model, language, and problem difficulty, to identify common error patterns. Results show that, although error types vary strongly across languages and models, even the largest models frequently make simple mistakes. We also observe that generated code often omits basic input validation or memory-safety checks, which can lead to overflows, resource exhaustion, or other reliability/security issues.

Related papers

• 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)
• CodeSimpleQA: Scaling Factuality in Code Large Language Models [55.705748501461294]
  We present CodeSimpleQA, a comprehensive benchmark designed to evaluate the factual accuracy of code LLMs in answering code-related questions.<n>We also create CodeSimpleQA-Instruct, a large-scale instruction corpus with 66M samples, and develop a post-training framework combining supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-22T14:27:17Z)
• RepoDebug: Repository-Level Multi-Task and Multi-Language Debugging Evaluation of Large Language Models [49.83481415540291]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have exhibited significant proficiency in code debug.<n>This paper introduces Repo Debug, a multi-task and multi-language repository-level code debug dataset.<n>We conduct evaluation experiments on 10 LLMs, where Claude 3.5 Sonnect, the best-performing model, still cannot perform well in repository-level debug.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-04T10:13:21Z)
• IFEvalCode: Controlled Code Generation [69.28317223249358]
  The paper introduces forward and backward constraints generation to improve the instruction-following capabilities of Code LLMs.<n>The authors present IFEvalCode, a multilingual benchmark comprising 1.6K test samples across seven programming languages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-30T08:08:48Z)
• Type-Constrained Code Generation with Language Models [51.03439021895432]
  We introduce a type-constrained decoding approach that leverages type systems to guide code generation.<n>For this purpose, we develop novel prefix automata and a search over inhabitable types, forming a sound approach to enforce well-typedness on LLM-generated code.<n>Our approach reduces compilation errors by more than half and significantly increases functional correctness in code synthesis, translation, and repair tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-12T15:03:00Z)
• A Deep Dive Into Large Language Model Code Generation Mistakes: What and Why? [9.246899995643918]
  Large Language Models can still generate defective code that deviates from the specification.<n>Seven categories of non-syntactic mistakes were identified through extensive manual analyses.<n>Our evaluation demonstrated that GPT-4 with the ReAct prompting technique can achieve an F1 score of up to 0.65 when identifying reasons for LLM's mistakes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-03T02:47:03Z)
• Insights from Benchmarking Frontier Language Models on Web App Code Generation [1.7268889851975326]
  This paper presents insights from evaluating 16 frontier large language models (LLMs) on the WebApp1K benchmark. The results reveal that while all models possess similar underlying knowledge, their performance is differentiated by the frequency of mistakes they make.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-08T18:24:26Z)
• 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)
• Towards Understanding the Characteristics of Code Generation Errors Made by Large Language Models [10.519984835232359]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated unprecedented capabilities in code generation.<n>We conducted an in-depth analysis of code generation errors across six representative LLMs on the HumanEval dataset.<n>Our findings highlighted several challenges in locating and fixing code generation errors made by LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-13T01:29:52Z)
• Exploring Data-Efficient Adaptation of Large Language Models for Code Generation [64.5583894165813]
  We propose a novel adaptation approach named DEED, which stands for Data-Efficient adaptation with Error-Driven learning for code generation.<n> Experimental results show that, compared to other mainstream fine-tuning approaches, DEED achieves superior performance with few training data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-29T16:09:02Z)
• Do Large Language Models Pay Similar Attention Like Human Programmers When Generating Code? [10.249771123421432]
  We investigate whether Large Language Models (LLMs) attend to the same parts of a task description as human programmers during code generation. We manually analyzed 211 incorrect code snippets and found five attention patterns that can be used to explain many code generation errors. Our findings highlight the need for human-aligned LLMs for better interpretability and programmer trust.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-02T00:57:03Z)

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.