Skip to content
Log in
Sponsored AI AM CLAUDE, A Beginner's Guide: Learn the basics of working with AI AI AM CLAUDE, A Beginner's Guide: Learn the basics of working with AI
#artificial intelligence Preprint Open access

Can LLMs Fix It Without Code? Toward Automated Verification of No-Code Bug Fixes

Utku Boran Torun Veli Karakaya Eray T\"uz\"un
Oct 2026
Artificial Intelligence

Abstract

A no-code fix resolves an invalid bug report by directing the user to change a setting, update to a version where the problem is already fixed, or adjust their workflow. Manually verifying whether a proposed no-code fix resolves the reported bug takes considerable developer time. This study proposes an automated, execution-based pipeline for evaluating the capability of large language models (LLMs) to generate no-code fixes in a real browser environment. We evaluate 322 no-code fixes generated by the 12 configurations released with the benchmark of a previous study, covering bug reports categorized as Faulty Configuration, Wrong Version, or External System & Dependency. An executor agent applies each fix by following its natural-language instructions, and an issue-specific checker determines whether the reported bug persists. We repeat the pipeline with three executors: two Computer-Use Agents, OpenCUA-72B and Claude Sonnet 5, and one multimodal agentic LLM, Meta's Muse Glimmer. Only 17.6% of the candidate issues could be set up and passed both sanity gates. Across the 322 fixes, 14.6% to 49.7% resolved the bug depending on the executor, and the strongest configuration, Claude Opus 4.6 in the Vanilla pipeline, resolved up to 74.1% of its fixes under Claude Sonnet 5. Changing only the executor shifted a configuration's resolution rate by 38.8% on average, and the three executors reached the same verdict on only 46.9% of the fixes. Compared with human execution, the executors matched the human consensus for 66.1% to 88.1% of the sampled fixes. Even under the best executor, fewer than half of the LLM-generated no-code fixes resolve the reported bug, so such fixes need verification before they reach users. Execution-based verification can provide this, but the measured capability depends strongly on the executor, which evaluations must report and control.

DOI arXiv
View source

Similar papers

#artificial intelligence Open access May 2023

Evaluating the Performance of Large Language Models on GAOKAO Benchmark

GAOKAO-Bench is introduced, an intuitive benchmark that employs questions from the Chinese GAOKAO examination as test samples, including both subjective and objective questions that contribute a robust evaluation benchmark for future large language models and offers valuable insights into the advantages and limitations...

Xiaotian Zhang, Chun-yan Li, Yi Zong et al. · 216 citations · ⚡17
#artificial intelligence Open access Jul 2024

Gender, Race, and Intersectional Bias in Resume Screening via Language Model Retrieval

This work investigates the possibilities of using LLMs in a resume screening setting via a document retrieval framework that simulates job candidate selection and finds that the MTEs are biased, significantly favoring White-associated names in 85% of cases and female-associated names in only 11.1% of cases.

Kyra Wilson, Aylin Caliskan · 131 citations · ⚡8
#artificial intelligence Review Oct 2025

Ultralytics YOLO Evolution: An Overview of YOLO26, YOLO11, YOLOv8 and YOLOv5 Object Detectors for Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

This paper presents a comprehensive overview of the Ultralytics YOLO family, emphasizing architectural evolution, benchmarking, deployment, and emerging directions from YOLOv5 through YOLO27, and examines detection, segmentation, depth, classification, pose, oriented detection, tracking, export, quantization, and deplo...

Ranjan Sapkota, Manoj Karkee · 112 citations · ⚡10
#artificial intelligence Aug 2024

The Death of Schema Linking? Text-to-SQL in the Age of Well-Reasoned Language Models

This work revisits schema linking when using the latest generation of large language models (LLMs) and finds empirically that newer models are adept at utilizing relevant schema elements during generation even in the presence of large numbers of irrelevant ones.

Karime Maamari, Fadhil Abubaker, Daniel Jaroslawicz et al. · 109 citations · ⚡19
#artificial intelligence Jun 2024

BadRAG: Identifying Vulnerabilities in Retrieval Augmented Generation of Large Language Models

A novel threat is unveiled in which attackers steer the RAG system's response by injecting malicious passages into its knowledge base, enabling the attacker to steer the response without altering the user input or modifying the RAG weights.

Jiaqi Xue, Meng Zheng, Yebowen Hu et al. · 109 citations · ⚡8
#artificial intelligence Feb 2025

PRISM: Self-Pruning Intrinsic Selection Method for Training-Free Multimodal Data Selection

Empirically, PRISM reduces the end-to-end time for data selection and model tuning to just 30% of conventional pipelines, and achieves this efficiency while simultaneously enhancing performance, surpassing models fine-tuned on the full dataset across eight multimodal and three language understanding benchmarks.

Jinhe Bi, Yifan Wang, Danqi Yan et al. · 73 citations · ⚡4

Related blog posts

MIT News · Artificial Intelligence Sep 29, 2026

Who we become when we talk to machines

Professor Sherry Turkle’s new book, “Artificial Intimacy,” offers a withering critique of chatbots and the antisocial dynamics she believes they encourage.

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.