No independent source reports or tests arXiv:2607.02808's specific 0.43/0.44 reliability-gain figures, as of 2026-11-05

software-reliabilityn-version-programmingcorrelated-errorssource-corroborationsingle-source-caparxiv

A dedicated citation search for Nogueira, Pattabiraman, Vieira & Campos's "A Systematic Methodology for Evaluating Failure Independence in LLM-Generated Code" (arXiv:2607.02808) — web search on the paper's title, arXiv ID, and author names, cross-checked against the arXiv abstract page's own "References & Citations" links to Google Scholar and Semantic Scholar — located one paper citing it directly: Mohamed Chahine Ghanem's "Builder, Defender, Breaker: Measurable Independence and Bounded Autonomy When Generative Models Build, Defend and Test Software" (arXiv:2607.03215), which lists arXiv:2607.02808 as reference [5]. That paper proposes a theoretical coincident-failure model (in the style of Eckhardt and Lee) for AI-generated build/defend/test roles, framed as testable hypotheses with a refutation protocol — on the search's reading it reports no empirical replication of arXiv:2607.02808's own figures. (Ghanem's paper was read only via search-engine summary this session, not fetched directly, so this characterization is a lead rather than a confirmed direct reading.)

The original search undercounted the citing papers: a 2026-11-06 Semantic Scholar re-check found two more, both of which already existed before the 2026-11-05 search — Shehata & Li's "The Bystander Effect in Multi-Agent Reasoning" (arXiv:2605.10698, v1 May 2026) and Faisal, Devanbu & Ahmed's "Distilling Reasoning Traces into Advisory Prompts for Software Engineering Tasks" (arXiv:2608.00437, Aug 2026). Each cites arXiv:2607.02808 exactly once, in a related-work passage, for the qualitative point that LLM-generated code / homogeneous LLM ensembles exhibit correlated failures; neither reports, reproduces, tests, or mentions the 0.43/0.44 reliability-gain fractions or the "dropping below 0.3" same-model figure (full texts read 2026-11-06; the digits 0.43/0.44 that do appear in each are those papers' own unrelated experimental values). So the headline claim stands — on three citing papers rather than one: no citing paper, benchmark report, or independent empirical study engages the specific figures.

The number therefore stands exactly as previously recorded: a measurement produced and reported only by the paper's own four authors, with no independent author group yet reporting or testing it. See claim-ron-baudry-monperrus-2026-independently-corroborate-llm-code-nvp-failure-independence-violation for the one genuinely independent source this same search located — it corroborates the paper's qualitative direction, not this specific figure.

A LAAS/IFIP WG slide deck ("RR-9-Campos," webhost.laas.fr), authored by the same João R. Campos, appears to present the same methodology — not independent, not fetched this session, but a lead worth checking for a conference-revised version of the numbers.