ExecRetrieval: Measuring the Functional-Correctness Gap in Code-Embedding Retrieval
Abstract
ExecRetrieval evaluates whether code embeddings can distinguish correct implementations from near-identical buggy variants, revealing that leading retrievers frequently rank incorrect near-clones above canonical solutions.
Embedding-based code retrieval is a core component of coding agents and retrieval-augmented code generation, where retrieving correct code matters more than retrieving lexically similar code. Existing code-retrieval benchmarks do not plant controlled, execution-verified single-edit variants of each query's canonical implementation in the search pool, leaving the question of whether embeddings can functionally discriminate correct from near-clone-but-incorrect code unanswered in a retrieval setting. Resolving this requires a benchmark whose search pool itself contains the relevant counterfactuals -- execution-verified buggy variants near-identical to each canonical -- so that a retriever's rank ordering can be directly tested for functional discrimination rather than topical or identity overlap. We introduce ExecRetrieval, 939 Python tasks each paired with one execution-verified canonical implementation and up to four execution-verified buggy distractors, each generated by a mechanical mutation making a single targeted edit, and evaluate 23 dense embedding configurations plus BM25 under provider-native invocation with paired McNemar tests and query-level bootstrap intervals. With near-clone counterfactuals in the pool, the top hosted system reaches exec@10 = 1.00 but only exec@1 = 0.331; rank-1 misses are paired buggy variants 91.5-99.4% of the time across the four leading systems, and the canonical scores below at least one of its four paired distractors in 67-78% of queries on the leading systems. The full dataset, execution oracle, embedding matrices, environment snapshot, and pairwise statistical tests are released at the URL in Appendix D.
Community
Excited to share ExecRetrieval! We ask a simple question: can code embeddings actually distinguish correct code from near-identical buggy code? Across 939 tasks and 24 retrieval systems, the best system reaches 100% exec@10 but only 33.1% exec@1, with most rank-1 failures being the query’s own near-clone buggy variants. Curious to hear thoughts on how we should close this functional-correctness gap in retrieval for coding agents and code RAG. (arxiv.org)
Accepted to EMNLP 2026 - Main Conference (Budapest, October 2026)
Get this paper in your agent:
hf papers read 2609.01865 Don't have the latest CLI?
curl -LsSf https://hf.co/cli/install.sh | bash Models citing this paper 0
No model linking this paper
Datasets citing this paper 0
No dataset linking this paper
Spaces citing this paper 0
No Space linking this paper
Collections including this paper 0
No Collection including this paper