Precise Debugging Benchmark: Is Your Model Debugging or Regenerating?
Summary
This paper introduces the Precise Debugging Benchmark (PDB), a framework that evaluates LLMs on precise fault localization rather than just test pass rates. Results show frontier models like GPT-4.1-Codex and DeepSeek-V3.2-Thinking pass 76%+ of unit tests but achieve less than 45% edit precision, revealing a critical gap between code regeneration and true debugging.
View Cached Full Text
Cached at: 04/21/26, 07:20 AM
Paper page - Precise Debugging Benchmark: Is Your Model Debugging or Regenerating?
Source: https://huggingface.co/papers/2604.17338
Abstract
Frontier LLMs demonstrate high test pass rates but poor precision in debugging tasks, indicating a gap between functional correctness and precise fault localization.
Unlike code completion, debugging requires localizing faults and applying targeted edits. We observe that frontier LLMs often regenerate correct but over-edited solutions during debugging. To evaluate how far LLMs are from precise debugging, we introduce thePrecise Debugging Benchmark(PDB) framework, which automatically converts any coding dataset into a debugging benchmark with precision-aware evaluation. PDB generates buggy programs by synthesizing verifiedatomic bugsand composing them into multi-bug programs. We define two novel metrics,edit-level precisionandbug-level recall, which measures how many necessary edits are made and how many bugs are resolved. We release two evaluation benchmarks: PDB-Single-Hard on single-line bugs, and PDB-Multi on multi-line bugs. Experiments show that frontier models, such as GPT-5.1-Codex and DeepSeek-V3.2-Thinking, achieve unit-test pass rates above 76% but exhibit precision below 45%, even when explicitly instructed to perform minimal debugging. Finally, we show that iterative andagentic debuggingstrategies do not substantially improve precision or recall, highlighting the need to rethink post-training pipelines for coding models.
View arXiv pageView PDFProject pageGitHub3Add to collection
Get this paper in your agent:
hf papers read 2604\.17338
Don’t have the latest CLI?curl \-LsSf https://hf\.co/cli/install\.sh \| bash
Models citing this paper0
No model linking this paper
Cite arxiv.org/abs/2604.17338 in a model README.md to link it from this page.
Datasets citing this paper3
#### Precise-Debugging-Benchmarking/PDB-Multi Viewer• Updatedabout 4 hours ago • 256 • 42 #### Precise-Debugging-Benchmarking/PDB-Single-Hard Viewer• Updatedabout 4 hours ago • 5.75k • 38 #### Precise-Debugging-Benchmarking/PDB-Single Viewer• Updatedabout 4 hours ago • 7.59k • 32
Spaces citing this paper0
No Space linking this paper
Cite arxiv.org/abs/2604.17338 in a Space README.md to link it from this page.
Collections including this paper0
No Collection including this paper
Add this paper to acollectionto link it from this page.
Similar Articles
PreciseCoder: Faithful and Generalizable Debugging Beyond Unit-Test Rewards
PreciseCoder 提出在单元测试奖励之外加入语义验证的局部编辑奖励信号,显著减少模型在调试时的多余改动并防止幻觉式 bug 修改;在 4B/9B/27B 模型上将平均编辑行数从 7-15 行降至 3 行,并能泛化到仓库级程序修复,其推理轨迹还能提升 GPT-5.6 Sol 等前沿模型的编辑精度。
Getting the Parameters Right: A Difficulty-Graded Benchmark and Probe-Guided Training for LLM Tool Calls
This paper introduces ParamBench, a difficulty-graded benchmark for LLM tool-call parameter generation, and proposes probe-guided training methods (PBT and PGR) that improve exact-match accuracy from 19.7% to 59.6%.
Large Language Models for Programming: Actually Fixing or Reimplementing Incorrect Code?
The paper investigates whether Large Language Models fix bugs by making minimal edits or reimplementing solutions from scratch in competitive programming, finding that LLMs often modify more than necessary and solve better when generating new solutions, which has implications for debugging tools.
Open-source models are closing the coding gap with GPT/Claude/Gemini ~1.5x faster than the frontier is advancing, and on decontaminated benchmarks a 27B model already beats Claude Opus 4.8 [live dashboard + analysis]
A live dashboard and statistical analysis shows open-source coding models are closing the gap with closed models at 1.5x the rate, with a 27B model already surpassing Claude Opus on decontaminated benchmarks. Tool-call reliability remains the main bottleneck.
KlinikeBench: Evaluating Language Models Beyond Diagnostic Accuracy
KlinikeBench introduces a clinician-verified benchmark of 333 interactive clinical tasks where LMs must gather patient history, use clinical tools, and reach a diagnosis within a turn budget. Across 31 models, the best (e.g., GPT-6-astra, Claude Opus 5) succeed on under 30% of tasks despite 90.7% diagnostic accuracy, revealing a large gap between diagnostic knowledge and real-world clinical interaction.