Empirical Evaluation of Generalizable Automated Program Repair with Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.03283v1
• Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2025 18:15:14 GMT
• Title: Empirical Evaluation of Generalizable Automated Program Repair with Large Language Models
• Authors: Viola Campos, Ridwan Shariffdeen, Adrian Ulges, Yannic Noller,
• Abstract summary: Automated Program Repair proposes bug fixes to aid developers in maintaining software.<n>Recent works have shown that LLMs can be used to generate repairs.<n>We evaluate a diverse set of 13 recent models, including open ones (e.g., Llama 3.3, Qwen 2.5 Coder, and DeepSeek R1 (dist.)) and closed ones (e.g., o3-mini, GPT-4o, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, Gemini 2.0 Flash)
• Score: 4.757323827658957
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Automated Program Repair (APR) proposes bug fixes to aid developers in maintaining software. The state of the art in this domain focuses on using LLMs, leveraging their strong capabilities to comprehend specifications in natural language and to generate program code. Recent works have shown that LLMs can be used to generate repairs. However, despite the APR community's research achievements and several industry deployments in the last decade, APR still lacks the capabilities to generalize broadly. In this work, we present an intensive empirical evaluation of LLMs for generating patches. We evaluate a diverse set of 13 recent models, including open ones (e.g., Llama 3.3, Qwen 2.5 Coder, and DeepSeek R1 (dist.)) and closed ones (e.g., o3-mini, GPT-4o, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, Gemini 2.0 Flash). In particular, we explore language-agnostic repairs by utilizing benchmarks for Java (e.g., Defects4J), JavaScript (e.g., BugsJS), Python (e.g., BugsInPy), and PHP (e.g., BugsPHP). Besides the generalization between different languages and levels of patch complexity, we also investigate the effects of fault localization (FL) as a preprocessing step and compare the progress for open vs closed models. Our evaluation represents a snapshot of the current repair capabilities of the latest LLMs. Key results include: (1) Different LLMs tend to perform best for different languages, which makes it hard to develop cross-platform repair techniques with single LLMs. (2) The combinations of models add value with respect to uniquely fixed bugs, so a committee of expert models should be considered. (3) Under realistic assumptions of imperfect FL, we observe significant drops in accuracy from the usual practice of using perfect FL. Our findings and insights will help both researchers and practitioners develop reliable and generalizable APR techniques and evaluate them in realistic and fair environments.

Related papers

• Do AI models help produce verified bug fixes? [62.985237003585674]
  Large Language Models are used to produce corrections to software bugs.<n>This paper investigates how programmers use Large Language Models to complement their own skills.<n>The results are a first step towards a proper role for AI and LLMs in providing guaranteed-correct fixes to program bugs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-21T17:30:16Z)
• Specification-Guided Repair of Arithmetic Errors in Dafny Programs using LLMs [84.30534714651093]
  We present an innovative APR tool for Dafny, a verification-aware programming language.<n>We localize faults through a series of steps, which include using Hoare Logic to determine the state of each statement within the program.<n>We evaluate our approach using DafnyBench, a benchmark of real-world Dafny programs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-04T15:36:12Z)
• Empirical Evaluation of Large Language Models in Automated Program Repair [11.840927951970146]
  Large language models (LLMs) offer new opportunities for automated program repair (APR)<n>We study four open-source LLMs, CodeLlama, LLaMA, StarCoder, and DeepSeek-Coder, spanning 7B to 33B parameters, diverse architectures, and purposes.<n>We evaluate them across two bug scenarios (enterprise-grades and algorithmic), three languages (Java, C/C++, Python), and four prompting strategies, analyzing over 600K generated patches on six benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-16T07:52:15Z)
• Automated Repair of Ambiguous Natural Language Requirements [9.379494157034083]
  We introduce the problem of automated repair of ambiguous NL requirements.<n>Our key novelty is in decomposing this problem into simpler subproblems which do not require metacognitive reasoning.<n>We implement this approach in a tool SpecFix, and evaluate it using three SOTA LLMs, GPT-4o, DeepSeek-V3 and Qwen2.5-Coder-32b-Instruct.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-12T06:47:53Z)
• Everything You Wanted to Know About LLM-based Vulnerability Detection But Were Afraid to Ask [30.819697001992154]
  Large Language Models are a promising tool for automated vulnerability detection.<n>Despite widespread adoption, a critical question remains: Are LLMs truly effective at detecting real-world vulnerabilities?<n>This paper challenges three widely held community beliefs: that LLMs are (i) unreliable, (ii) insensitive to code patches, and (iii) performance-plateaued across model scales.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-18T05:32:47Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Aligning the Objective of LLM-based Program Repair [14.935596175148586]
  This paper investigates a new approach to adapt large language models (LLMs) to program repair.<n>Our core insight is that LLM's APR capability can be greatly improved by simply aligning the output to their training objective.<n>Based on this insight, we designed D4C, a straightforward prompting framework for APR.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-13T02:36:40Z)
• A Novel Approach for Automatic Program Repair using Round-Trip Translation with Large Language Models [50.86686630756207]
  Research shows that grammatical mistakes in a sentence can be corrected by translating it to another language and back. Current generative models for Automatic Program Repair (APR) are pre-trained on source code and fine-tuned for repair. This paper proposes bypassing the fine-tuning step and using Round-Trip Translation (RTT): translation of code from one programming language to another programming or natural language, and back.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-15T22:36:31Z)
• MAgIC: Investigation of Large Language Model Powered Multi-Agent in Cognition, Adaptability, Rationality and Collaboration [98.18244218156492]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly advanced natural language processing.<n>As their applications expand into multi-agent environments, there arises a need for a comprehensive evaluation framework.<n>This work introduces a novel competition-based benchmark framework to assess LLMs within multi-agent settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T21:46:27Z)
• CodeApex: A Bilingual Programming Evaluation Benchmark for Large Language Models [43.655927559990616]
  We propose CodeApex, a benchmark dataset focusing on the programming comprehension, code generation, and code correction abilities of LLMs. We evaluate 12 widely used LLMs, including both general-purpose and specialized models. GPT-4 exhibits the best programming capabilities, achieving approximate accuracy of 69%, 54%, and 66% on the three tasks, respectively.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-05T04:12:01Z)
• A Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation of LLM-Based Explainable Fault Localization [12.80414941523501]
  AutoFL generates an explanation of the bug along with a suggested fault location. Experiments on 798 real-world bugs in Java and Python reveal AutoFL improves method-level acc@1 by up to 233.3% over baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-10T10:26:55Z)
• Prompting GPT-3 To Be Reliable [117.23966502293796]
  This work decomposes reliability into four facets: generalizability, fairness, calibration, and factuality. We find that GPT-3 outperforms smaller-scale supervised models by large margins on all these facets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-17T14:52:39Z)
• BigIssue: A Realistic Bug Localization Benchmark [89.8240118116093]
  BigIssue is a benchmark for realistic bug localization. We provide a general benchmark with a diversity of real and synthetic Java bugs. We hope to advance the state of the art in bug localization, in turn improving APR performance and increasing its applicability to the modern development cycle.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-21T20:17:53Z)

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.