Sep 1, 2026 · cs.SEJ/K move · Enter open · S save
Anik Jha
Independent Researcher
Fault localization can focus a code model's repair on the statements a failing test implicates, but a targeted edit may succeed merely because it is small, and a second model call may succeed without using the failure at all. We separate these explanations with three arms applied to the same failed candidate: blind whole-solution resampling, spectrum-based localization followed by suspect-span infilling, and same-length infilling at a disjoint random code span. Across three frozen 26-32B models, three benchmarks and 488 failing candidates, plus a separately declared 24B fourth model from a third family, three results follow. First, localization is rarely available: only 9.0% of failing candidates expose a failing public test with a usable spectrum. Second, among the 177 candidates localizable from a strong suite, localized infilling loses decisively to blind resampling at a matched attempt count (3:40, p = 3.0 x 10^-9), opposite to our hypothesis; the loss replicates in a third family at -11.3 points (95% CI [-16.6, -6.8]), and widening the edit does not rescue it. Third, against the random-span placebo localized infilling leads pooled (11:1, Holm-adjusted p = .019), but that lead resolves in no individual model under the analysis our shipped plan designates primary (best Holm p = .087), so we report the location effect as suggestive rather than established. Re-pricing attempts as tokens narrows but does not overturn this: a span attempt spends 21.7 generated tokens against 371.1, yet 16 localized attempts reach 6.8% while one blind attempt already reaches 10.1%. Infilling reproduces the removed span verbatim in 48.9% of attempts, which is why more budget does not help. We restrict every localization conclusion to the 24-32B models tested.