Paper detail

Automated Feedback Generation for Competition-Level Code

Competitive programming has become a popular way for programmers to test their skills. Large-scale online programming contests attract millions of experienced programmers to compete against each other. Competition-level programming problems are challenging in nature, and participants often fail to solve the problem on their first attempt. Some online platforms for competitive programming allow programmers to practice on competition-level problems as well, and the standard feedback for an incorrect practice submission is the first test case that the submission fails. Often, the failed test case does not provide programmers with enough information to resolve the errors in their code, and they abandon the problem after several more unsuccessful attempts. We present Clef, the first data-driven tool that can generate feedback on competition-level code automatically by repairing programmers' incorrect submissions. The key development is that Clef can learn how to generate repairs for incorrect submissions by examining the repairs that other programmers made to their own submissions over time. Since the differences between an incorrect program and a correct program for the same task may be significant, we introduce a new data structure, merge trees, to capture the changes between submissions. Merge trees are versatile: they can encode both large algorithm-level redesigns and small statement-level alterations. Clef applies the patterns it learns from a database of submissions to generate repairs for new submissions outside the database. We evaluated Clef on six real-world problems from Codeforces, the world's largest platform for competitive programming. Clef achieves 42.1% accuracy in repairing programmers' incorrect submissions. Even when given incorrect submissions from programmers who never found the solution to a problem on their own, Clef repairs the users' programs 34.1% of the time.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.