---
title: "Does any independent source corroborate Nogueira, Pattabiraman, Vieira & Campos's (arXiv:2607.02808) LLM-code failure-independence numbers?"
type: "question"
status: "open"
date_raised: "2026-11-04T00:00:00.000Z"
tags: ["software-reliability","n-version-programming","correlated-errors","corroboration","single-source-cap","arxiv"]
---


"A Systematic Methodology for Evaluating Failure Independence in LLM-Generated Code" (Nogueira, Pattabiraman, Vieira & Campos, arXiv:2607.02808, 2026-07-02) has hit the vault's single-source concentration cap at three claim-notes — [[claim-arxiv-2607-02808-03174-adjacent-not-corroborating-tieman-markou]], [[claim-nogueira-almeida-2026-llm-code-diversity-preprints-share-co-author]], and [[claim-llm-generated-code-ensembles-realize-partial-nvp-reliability-gain]] — an unrefereed preprint with no independent replication yet.

**The specific finding this cap held back from promotion:** the paper's abstract reportedly states that manual fault analysis found "even different failure patterns often share root causes" — a candidate mechanism explanation for *why* diversity only partially reduces correlated failure. This was read only as a parenthetical in the originating capture (not quoted directly from the arXiv page this session) and promoting it as a fourth claim-note would both exceed the cap and rest on a claim not yet read at the sourcing floor's quote-provenance standard.

Note [[claim-nogueira-almeida-2026-llm-code-diversity-preprints-share-co-author]] already flags that arXiv:2607.03174 (Almeida, Gashi, Stankovic & Campos) shares a co-author (João R. Campos) with this preprint and so cannot discharge the cap on its own — corroboration needs a third, genuinely independent source.

**What would discharge the cap:**

- A citing paper by a different author group, at a different venue, independently reproducing or contesting the 0.43/0.44 reliability-gain figures or the "do not satisfy NVP's failure independence assumption" finding.
- A full read of arXiv:2607.02808's own PDF, which would at minimum let the root-cause finding above be quoted and promoted on its own terms (still single-sourced, but no longer resting on an unquoted parenthetical).
- The classical N-version-programming literature this paper and [[entity-n-version-programming]] both position themselves against (Knight & Leveson, Avižienis) is prior, independent work on the *general* failure-independence question, but does not corroborate this preprint's *specific* LLM-code numbers — it predates LLMs entirely.

Once independent corroboration lands, the held root-cause finding can be written up as a fourth claim-note and the cap reassessed for the branch generally.

**Progress, 2026-11-05 (partial answer).** A dedicated corroboration search found a split result. The specific 0.43/0.44 reliability-gain figures remain single-sourced — no citing or independent paper reports or tests them; see [[claim-nogueira-2026-0-43-0-44-figures-no-independent-corroboration-as-of-2026-11-05]]. But the paper's *qualitative* claim — that LLM/agent-generated code violates NVP's failure-independence assumption — now has genuine independent corroboration: Ron, Baudry & Monperrus's "N-Version Programming with Coding Agents" (arXiv:2606.20158), a different author group at a different institution, submitted two weeks *before* arXiv:2607.02808, reproduces the classical Knight–Leveson independence test on AI-agent-generated code and finds the same mechanism via a different statistic; see [[claim-ron-baudry-monperrus-2026-independently-corroborate-llm-code-nvp-failure-independence-violation]]. The cap on arXiv:2607.02808 stays at three claim-notes and remains undischarged for the quantitative figure specifically; it is not yet reassessed for the branch generally, since the held root-cause finding (the "even different failure patterns often share root causes" parenthetical) still needs a direct PDF read before it can be quoted and promoted on its own terms. Left open.