Dependency conflicts in Python ecosystems arise from incompatible version constraints, missing packages, and undocumented compatibility relationships, causing many real-world code snippets to fail at execution. This paper presents PLLM+, a hybrid dependency-repair pipeline evaluated on the HG2.9K benchmark of 2,891 dependency-failing snippets. PLLM+ prioritizes inexpensive deterministic steps before invoking LLM-based repair: static AST-based interpreter inference, replay of historically successful dependency configurations from the competition-provided solutions database, and live PyPI validation of candidate package versions. When these steps do not resolve a case, the system falls back to a structured LLM-based repair loop with typed error classification and Proposer/Critic agents. On HG2.9K, PLLM+ solves 1,500 out of 2,891 snippets, compared with 1,169 solved by the PLLM baseline. It also reduces average runtime from 368.7 to 71.8 seconds per snippet. Most successful fixes come from replaying known configurations: 1,495 of the 1,500 successful fixes are produced by the solutions database, while the LLM fallback accounts for 5 additional fixes. These results suggest that, in this benchmark setting, deterministic reuse of previously validated dependency configurations is a simple and effective strategy, with LLM-based repair serving as a secondary fallback for cases not covered by prior solutions.
We present MEMRES, an agentic system for Python dependency resolution that introduces a multi-level confidence cascade where the LLM serves as the last resort. Our system combines: (1) a Self-Evolving Memory that accumulates reusable resolution patterns via tips and shortcuts; (2) an Error Pattern Knowledge Base with 200+ curated import-to-package mappings; (3) a Semantic Import Analyzer; and (4) a Python 2 heuristic detector resolving the largest failure category. On HG2.9K using Gemma-2 9B (10 GB VRAM). MEMRES resolves 2503 of 2890 (86.6%, 10-run average) snippets, combining intra-session memory with our confidence cascade for the remainder. This already exceeds PLLM's 54.7% overall success rate by a wide margin.
Dao Sy Duy Minh, Tran Chi Nguyen, Trung Kiet Huynh +3
Third-party Python libraries introduce dependency management overhead, supply chain risk, and deployment friction in constrained environments. A natural question is how much of this ecosystem can be replicated using only Python's standard library -- and at what correctness and performance cost. We address this empirically through zerodep, a growing collection of single-file Python modules, each a stdlib-only reimplementation of a popular third-party library, developed with LLM assistance under strict constraints: no external imports, single file, drop-in API compatibility, and mandatory correctness validation against the reference library. Spanning over 40 modules across 12 categories -- including serialization, networking, cryptography, agent protocols, and text processing -- zerodep provides a controlled testbed for two interrelated questions: (1) Where does the stdlib suffice? and (2) Can LLMs effectively generate correct, performant code under tight symbolic constraints? Systematic benchmarking shows that stdlib-only implementations achieve performance parity (within 2x of the reference) in the majority of cases. The primary performance cliff is C-extension-backed computation (image processing, binary serialization, low-level crypto), not the inherent overhead of pure-Python third-party libraries. Conversely, many widely-used libraries carry architectural overhead that LLM-generated stdlib reimplementations avoid, yielding 5--115x speedups in several categories. We characterize the stdlib capability boundary across complexity tiers and library categories, discuss where LLM-assisted development succeeds and where it requires iterative human correction, and examine implications for dependency-free software engineering at scale. zerodep is open-source at https://github.com/Oaklight/zerodep.
Modern LLM training pipelines increasingly rely on other models to generate data, filter corpora, judge outputs, and guide development decisions. These dependencies are recursive: a model may depend on an upstream artifact whose own dependencies are documented only in separate releases and artifacts. As a result, the full dependency structure is fragmented across heterogeneous public artifacts, with complexity and recursive depth far outpacing humans' ability to trace. We introduce ModSleuth, an agentic system that recursively reconstructs LLM dependency graphs from public artifacts with source-grounded evidence. We find that the primary challenge is no longer information extraction, but defining what constitutes a dependency and reconciling artifact references across inconsistent documentation. We address these challenges through a formalization that distinguishes direct and indirect dependencies, represents heterogeneous pipeline roles through operation-centered relationships, and resolves artifact identities across names, versions, and repositories. Applying ModSleuth to four public-artifact-rich LLM releases, we recover 1,060 source-verified dependencies and construct large-scale dependency graphs of modern LLM development. These graphs reveal multi-hop license obligations, train-evaluation coupling, discrepancies between released and training-time artifacts, and documentation inconsistencies that would otherwise be difficult to uncover. We release ModSleuth and the resulting dependency graphs to support transparent analysis of the increasingly complex ecosystems underlying modern LLMs.