HAFix: History-Augmented Large Language Models for Bug Fixing

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2501.09135v2
• Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2025 22:51:03 GMT
• Title: HAFix: History-Augmented Large Language Models for Bug Fixing
• Authors: Yu Shi, Abdul Ali Bangash, Emad Fallahzadeh, Bram Adams, Ahmed E. Hassan,
• Abstract summary: We propose HAFix, which stands for HistoryLabelmented LLMs on Bug Fixing.<n>We employ three Code LLMs (i.e., Code Llama, DeepSeek-Coder and DeepSeek-Coder-V2-Lite models) on 51 single-line Python bugs from BugsInPy and 116 single-line Java bugs from Defects4J.<n>Our evaluation demonstrates that multiple HAFixs achieve statistically significant improvements compared to a non-historical baseline.
• Score: 14.593589983869135
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Recent studies have explored the performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) on various Software Engineering (SE) tasks, such as code generation and bug fixing. However, these approaches typically rely on the context data from the current snapshot of the project, overlooking the potential of rich historical data residing in real-world software repositories. Additionally, the impact of prompt styles on LLM performance for SE tasks within a historical context remains underexplored. To address these gaps, we propose HAFix, which stands for History-Augmented LLMs on Bug Fixing, a novel approach that leverages seven individual historical heuristics associated with bugs and aggregates the results of these heuristics (HAFix-Agg) to enhance LLMs' bug-fixing capabilities. To empirically evaluate HAFix, we employ three Code LLMs (i.e., Code Llama, DeepSeek-Coder and DeepSeek-Coder-V2-Lite models) on 51 single-line Python bugs from BugsInPy and 116 single-line Java bugs from Defects4J. Our evaluation demonstrates that multiple HAFix heuristics achieve statistically significant improvements compared to a non-historical baseline inspired by GitHub Copilot. Furthermore, the aggregated HAFix variant HAFix-Agg achieves substantial improvements by combining the complementary strengths of individual heuristics, increasing bug-fixing rates by an average of 45.05% on BugsInPy and 49.92% on Defects4J relative to the corresponding baseline. Moreover, within the context of historical heuristics, we identify the Instruction prompt style as the most effective template compared to the InstructionLabel and InstructionMask for LLMs in bug fixing. Finally, we evaluate the cost of HAFix in terms of inference time and token usage, and provide a pragmatic trade-off analysis of the cost and bug-fixing performance, offering valuable insights for the practical deployment of our approach in real-world scenarios.

Related papers

• BugPilot: Complex Bug Generation for Efficient Learning of SWE Skills [59.003563837981886]
  High quality bugs are key to training the next generation of language model based software engineering (SWE) agents.<n>We introduce a novel method for synthetic generation of difficult and diverse bugs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-22T17:58:56Z)
• Verifying the Verifiers: Unveiling Pitfalls and Potentials in Fact Verifiers [59.168391398830515]
  We evaluate 12 pre-trained LLMs and one specialized fact-verifier, using a collection of examples from 14 fact-checking benchmarks.<n>We highlight the importance of addressing annotation errors and ambiguity in datasets.<n> frontier LLMs with few-shot in-context examples, often overlooked in previous works, achieve top-tier performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-16T10:32:10Z)
• LLMs are Bug Replicators: An Empirical Study on LLMs' Capability in Completing Bug-prone Code [24.048639099281324]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance in code completion.<n>This paper presents the first empirical study evaluating the performance of LLMs in completing bug-prone code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-14T04:48:38Z)
• Learning to Solve and Verify: A Self-Play Framework for Code and Test Generation [69.62857948698436]
  Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have improved their performance on coding benchmarks. However, improvement is plateauing due to the exhaustion of readily available high-quality data. We propose Sol-Ver, a self-play solver-verifier framework that jointly improves a single model's code and test generation capacity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-20T18:32:19Z)
• Where's the Bug? Attention Probing for Scalable Fault Localization [18.699014321422023]
  We present Bug Attention Probe (BAP), a method which learns state-of-the-art fault localization without any direct localization labels.<n>BAP is significantly more efficient than prompting, outperforming large open-weight models at a small fraction of the computational cost.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-19T18:59:32Z)
• PATCH: Empowering Large Language Model with Programmer-Intent Guidance and Collaborative-Behavior Simulation for Automatic Bug Fixing [34.768989900184636]
  Bug fixing holds significant importance in software development and maintenance. Recent research has made substantial strides in exploring the potential of large language models (LLMs) for automatically resolving software bugs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-27T15:43:04Z)
• Leveraging Online Olympiad-Level Math Problems for LLMs Training and Contamination-Resistant Evaluation [55.21013307734612]
  AoPS-Instruct is a dataset of more than 600,000 high-quality QA pairs. LiveAoPSBench is an evolving evaluation set with timestamps, derived from the latest forum data. Our work presents a scalable approach to creating and maintaining large-scale, high-quality datasets for advanced math reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-24T06:39:38Z)
• Self-Evolving Critique Abilities in Large Language Models [59.861013614500024]
  This paper explores enhancing critique abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We introduce SCRIT, a framework that trains LLMs with self-generated data to evolve their critique abilities.<n>Our analysis reveals that SCRIT's performance scales positively with data and model size.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-10T05:51:52Z)
• Are LLMs Better than Reported? Detecting Label Errors and Mitigating Their Effect on Model Performance [21.926934384262594]
  Large language models (LLMs) offer new opportunities to enhance the annotation process. We compare expert, crowd-sourced, and our LLM-based annotations in terms of agreement, label quality, and efficiency. Our findings reveal a substantial number of label errors, which, when corrected, induce a significant upward shift in reported model performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-24T16:27:03Z)
• What's Wrong with Your Code Generated by Large Language Models? An Extensive Study [80.18342600996601]
  Large language models (LLMs) produce code that is shorter yet more complicated as compared to canonical solutions. We develop a taxonomy of bugs for incorrect codes that includes three categories and 12 sub-categories, and analyze the root cause for common bug types. We propose a novel training-free iterative method that introduces self-critique, enabling LLMs to critique and correct their generated code based on bug types and compiler feedback.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-08T17:27:17Z)
• A Deep Dive into Large Language Models for Automated Bug Localization and Repair [12.756202755547024]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive effectiveness in various software engineering tasks, including automated program repair (APR) In this study, we take a deep dive into automated bug fixing utilizing LLMs. This methodological separation of bug localization and fixing using different LLMs enables effective integration of diverse contextual information. Toggle achieves the new state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance on the CodeXGLUE code refinement benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-17T17:48:18Z)
• Evaluating the Factuality of Large Language Models using Large-Scale Knowledge Graphs [30.179703001666173]
  Factuality issue is a critical concern for Large Language Models (LLMs) We propose GraphEval to evaluate an LLM's performance using a substantially large test dataset. Test dataset is retrieved from a large knowledge graph with more than 10 million facts without expensive human efforts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-01T06:01:17Z)
• Characterization of Large Language Model Development in the Datacenter [55.9909258342639]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have presented impressive performance across several transformative tasks. However, it is non-trivial to efficiently utilize large-scale cluster resources to develop LLMs. We present an in-depth characterization study of a six-month LLM development workload trace collected from our GPU datacenter Acme.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-12T13:31:14Z)
• Exploring Data-Efficient Adaptation of Large Language Models for Code Generation [64.5583894165813]
  We propose a novel adaptation approach named DEED, which stands for Data-Efficient adaptation with Error-Driven learning for code generation.<n> Experimental results show that, compared to other mainstream fine-tuning approaches, DEED achieves superior performance with few training data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-29T16:09:02Z)
• DebugBench: Evaluating Debugging Capability of Large Language Models [80.73121177868357]
  DebugBench is a benchmark for Large Language Models (LLMs) It covers four major bug categories and 18 minor types in C++, Java, and Python. We evaluate two commercial and four open-source models in a zero-shot scenario.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-09T15:46:38Z)
• The Earth is Flat? Unveiling Factual Errors in Large Language Models [89.94270049334479]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT are in various applications due to their extensive knowledge from pre-training and fine-tuning. Despite this, they are prone to generating factual and commonsense errors, raising concerns in critical areas like healthcare, journalism, and education. We introduce a novel, automatic testing framework, FactChecker, aimed at uncovering factual inaccuracies in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-01T14:02:27Z)
• The GitHub Recent Bugs Dataset for Evaluating LLM-based Debugging Applications [20.339673903885483]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong natural language processing and code synthesis capabilities. Details about LLM training data are often not made public, which has caused concern as to whether existing bug benchmarks are included. We present the GitHub Recent Bugs dataset, which includes 76 real-world Java bugs that were gathered after the OpenAI data cut-off point.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-20T02:37:44Z)
• Editing Large Language Models: Problems, Methods, and Opportunities [51.903537096207]
  This paper embarks on a deep exploration of the problems, methods, and opportunities related to model editing for LLMs. We provide an exhaustive overview of the task definition and challenges associated with model editing, along with an in-depth empirical analysis of the most progressive methods currently at our disposal. Our objective is to provide valuable insights into the effectiveness and feasibility of each editing technique, thereby assisting the community in making informed decisions on the selection of the most appropriate method for a specific task or context.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T16:00:00Z)
• Towards Generating Functionally Correct Code Edits from Natural Language Issue Descriptions [11.327913840111378]
  We introduce Defects4J-NL2Fix, a dataset of 283 Java programs from the popular Defects4J dataset augmented with high-level descriptions of bug fixes. We empirically evaluate the performance of several state-of-the-art LLMs for the this task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-07T18:58:33Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.