Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have emerged as a powerful, data-driven approach for Quantum Error Correction (QEC) decoding, capable of learning complex noise characteristics directly from syndrome data. However, the robustness of these decoders against subtle, adversarial perturbations remains a critical open question. This work introduces a novel framework to systematically probe the vulnerabilities of a GNN decoder using a reinforcement learning (RL) agent. The RL agent is trained as an adversary with the goal of finding minimal syndrome modifications that cause the decoder to misclassify. We apply this framework to a Graph Attention Network (GAT) decoder trained on experimental surface code data from Google Quantum AI. Our results show that the RL agent can successfully identify specific, critical vulnerabilities, achieving a high attack success rate with a minimal number of bit flips. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the decoder's robustness can be significantly enhanced through adversarial training, where the model is retrained on the adversarial examples generated by the RL agent. This iterative process of automated vulnerability discovery and targeted retraining presents a promising methodology for developing more reliable and robust neural network decoders for fault-tolerant quantum computing.

In Computer Science (CS) education, understanding factors contributing to students' programming difficulties is crucial for effective learning support. By identifying specific issues students face, educators can provide targeted assistance to help them overcome obstacles and improve learning outcomes. While identifying sources of struggle, such as misconceptions, in real-time can be challenging in current educational practices, analyzing logical errors in students' code can offer valuable insights. This paper presents a scalable framework for automatically detecting logical errors in students' programming solutions. Our framework is based on an explainable Abstract Syntax Tree (AST) embedding model, the Subtree-based Attention Neural Network (SANN), that identifies the structural components of programs containing logical errors. We conducted a series of experiments to evaluate its effectiveness, and the results suggest that our framework can accurately capture students' logical errors and, more importantly, provide us with deeper insights into their learning processes, offering a valuable tool for enhancing programming education.

LLMs are transforming software development, yet current code generation and code repair benchmarks mainly assess syntactic and functional correctness in simple, single-error cases. LLMs' capabilities to autonomously find and fix runtime logical errors in complex data science code remain largely unexplored. To address this gap, we introduce DSDBench: the Data Science Debugging Benchmark, the first benchmark for systematic evaluation of LLMs on multi-hop error tracing and multi-bug detection in data science code debugging. DSDBench adapts datasets from existing data science task benchmarks, such as DABench and MatPlotBench, featuring realistic data science debugging tasks with automatically synthesized multi-hop, multi-bug code snippets. DSDBench includes 1,117 annotated samples with 741 cause-effect error pairs and runtime error messages. Evaluations of state-of-the-art LLMs on DSDBench show significant performance gaps, highlighting challenges in debugging logical runtime errors in data science code. DSDBench offers a crucial resource to evaluate and improve LLMs' debugging and reasoning capabilities, enabling more reliable AI-assisted data science in the future.DSDBench is publicly available at https://github.com/KevinCL16/DSDBench.

Logical errors in programming don't raise compiler alerts, making them hard to detect. These silent errors can disrupt a program's function or cause run-time issues. Their correction requires deep insight into the program's logic, highlighting the importance of automated detection and repair. In this paper, we introduce LecPrompt to localize and repair logical errors, an prompt-based approach that harnesses the capabilities of CodeBERT, a transformer-based large language model trained on code. First, LecPrompt leverages a large language model to calculate perplexity and log probability metrics, pinpointing logical errors at both token and line levels. Through statistical analysis, it identifies tokens and lines that deviate significantly from the expected patterns recognized by large language models, marking them as potential error sources. Second, by framing the logical error correction challenge as a Masked Language Modeling (MLM) task, LecPrompt employs CodeBERT to autoregressively repair the identified error tokens. Finally, the soft-prompt method provides a novel solution in low-cost scenarios, ensuring that the model can be fine-tuned to the specific nuances of the logical error correction task without incurring high computational costs. To evaluate LecPrompt's performance, we created a method to introduce logical errors into correct code and applying this on QuixBugs to produce the QuixBugs-LE dataset. Our evaluations on the QuixBugs-LE dataset for both Python and Java highlight the impressive capabilities of our method, LecPrompt. For Python, LecPrompt achieves a noteworthy 74.58% top-1 token-level repair accuracy and 27.4% program-level repair accuracy. In Java, LecPrompt delivers a 69.23\% top-1 token-level repair accuracy and 24.7% full program-level repair accuracy.

In this thesis, I evaluate the performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) on the Law School Admissions Test (LSAT), specifically the Logic Games section of the test. I focus on this section because it presents a complex logical reasoning task and thus is a valuable source of data for evaluating how modern, increasingly capable LLMs can handle hard logical reasoning tasks. I construct a dataset of LSAT logic games and their associated metadata, and extensively evaluate LLMs' performance in a Chain-of-Thought prompting setting. Given the weak performance in this setting, I explore other prompting frameworks on a smaller subset of the dataset, adapting ideas from Reflexion to this task. This results in a substantially improved accuracy of 70 percent for GPT-4 and 46 percent for GPT-3.5 on this data subset, highlighting the capacity of LLMs to revise their logical errors, despite initially weak performance. Finally, I analyze the types of logic games that models perform better or worse on, as well as the types of logical errors I observe from human annotation, providing detailed insights on the logical reasoning capabilities of LLMs.

In feedback generation for logical errors in programming assignments, large language model (LLM)-based methods have shown great promise. These methods ask the LLM to generate feedback given the problem statement and a student's (buggy) submission. There are several issues with these types of methods. First, the generated feedback messages are often too direct in revealing the error in the submission and thus diminish valuable opportunities for the student to learn. Second, they do not consider the student's learning context, i.e., their previous submissions, current knowledge, etc. Third, they are not layered since existing methods use a single, shared prompt for all student submissions. In this paper, we explore using LLMs to generate a "feedback-ladder", i.e., multiple levels of feedback for the same problem-submission pair. We evaluate the quality of the generated feedback-ladder via a user study with students, educators, and researchers. We have observed diminishing effectiveness for higher-level feedback and higher-scoring submissions overall in the study. In practice, our method enables teachers to select an appropriate level of feedback to show to a student based on their personal learning context, or in a progressive manner to go more detailed if a higher-level feedback fails to correct the student's error.

LLMs trained in the understanding of programming syntax are now providing effective assistance to developers and are being used in programming education such as in generation of coding problem examples or providing code explanations. A key aspect of programming education is understanding and dealing with error message. However, 'logical errors' in which the program operates against the programmer's intentions do not receive error messages from the compiler. In this study, building on existing research on programming errors, we first define the types of logical errors that can occur in programming in general. Based on the definition, we propose an effective approach for detecting logical errors with LLMs that makes use of relations among error types in the Chain-of-Thought and Tree-of-Thought prompts. The experimental results indicate that when such logical error descriptions in the prompt are used, the average classification performance is about 21% higher than the ones without them. We also conducted an experiment for exploiting the relations among errors in generating a new logical error dataset using LLMs. As there is very limited dataset for logical errors such benchmark dataset can be very useful for various programming related applications. We expect that our work can assist novice programmers in identifying the causes of code errors and correct them more effectively.

While self-correction has shown promise in improving LLM outputs in terms of style and quality (e.g. Chen et al., 2023; Madaan et al., 2023), recent attempts to self-correct logical or reasoning errors often cause correct answers to become incorrect, resulting in worse performances overall (Huang et al., 2023). In this paper, we break down the self-correction process into two core components: mistake finding and output correction. For mistake finding, we release BIG-Bench Mistake, a dataset of logical mistakes in Chain-of-Thought reasoning traces. We provide benchmark numbers for several state-of-the-art LLMs, and demonstrate that LLMs generally struggle with finding logical mistakes. For output correction, we propose a backtracking method which provides large improvements when given information on mistake location. We construe backtracking as a lightweight alternative to reinforcement learning methods, and show that it remains effective with a reward model at 60-70% accuracy.