From Benchmark Data To Applicable Program Repair: An Experience Report

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.16071v1
• Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2025 03:59:27 GMT
• Title: From Benchmark Data To Applicable Program Repair: An Experience Report
• Authors: Mahinthan Chandramohan, Jovan Jancic, Yuntong Zhang, Padmanabhan Krishnan,
• Abstract summary: This paper describes our approach to automated program repair.<n>We combine various techniques from the literature to achieve this.<n>Experiments show that our approach performs better than other techniques on standard benchmarks.<n>On closer inspection, none of these techniques work on realistic defects that we see in industry.
• Score: 1.6913109767046948
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: This paper describes our approach to automated program repair. We combine various techniques from the literature to achieve this. Our experiments show that our approach performs better than other techniques on standard benchmarks. However, on closer inspection, none of these techniques work on realistic defects that we see in industry. We find that augmenting code with formal specifications enables LLMs to generate higher-quality unit tests, especially for complex production code with improved coverage of edge cases and exception handling. However, specifications add little value for well-understood errors (e.g., null pointer, index out of bounds), but are beneficial for logic and string manipulation errors. Despite encouraging benchmark results, real-world adoption is limited since passing tests do not guarantee correct patches. Current challenges include insufficient expressiveness of the JML specification language, necessitating advanced verification tools and richer predicates. Our ongoing work is exploring contract automata, programming by example, and testcase repair, with a focus on integrating human feedback and measuring productivity gains - highlighting the gap between academic benchmarks and practical industry needs

Related papers

• Are LLMs Reliable Code Reviewers? Systematic Overcorrection in Requirement Conformance Judgement [8.059802912761919]
  We uncover a systematic failure of large language models (LLMs) in matching code to natural language requirements.<n>More detailed prompt design, particularly with those requiring explanations and proposed corrections, leads to higher misjudgment rates.<n>We propose a Fix-guided Verification Filter that treats the model proposed fix as executable counterfactual evidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-28T08:35:25Z)
• AlgoVeri: An Aligned Benchmark for Verified Code Generation on Classical Algorithms [54.99368693313797]
  Existing benchmarks test only individual languages/tools, so the performance numbers are not directly comparable.<n>We address this gap with AlgoVeri, a benchmark that evaluates vericoding of $77$ classical algorithms in Dafny, Verus, and Lean.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-10T06:58:26Z)
• Towards Comprehensive Benchmarking Infrastructure for LLMs In Software Engineering [19.584762693453893]
  BEHELM is a holistic benchmarking infrastructure that unifies software-scenario specification with multi-metric evaluation.<n>Our goal is to reduce the overhead currently required to construct benchmarks while enabling a fair, realistic, and future-proof assessment of LLMs in software engineering.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-28T21:55:10Z)
• SWE-fficiency: Can Language Models Optimize Real-World Repositories on Real Workloads? [22.075705411944895]
  SWE-fficiency is a benchmark for evaluating repository-level performance optimization on real workloads.<n>Our suite contains 498 tasks across nine widely used data-science, machine-learning, and HPC repositories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-08T17:55:09Z)
• ImpossibleBench: Measuring LLMs' Propensity of Exploiting Test Cases [58.411135609139855]
  "Shortcuts" to complete tasks pose significant risks for reliable assessment and deployment of large language models.<n>We introduce ImpossibleBench, a benchmark framework that measures LLM agents' propensity to exploit test cases.<n>As a practical framework, ImpossibleBench is not just an evaluation but a versatile tool.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-23T06:58:32Z)
• Alignment with Fill-In-the-Middle for Enhancing Code Generation [56.791415642365415]
  We propose a novel approach that splits code snippets into smaller, granular blocks, creating more diverse DPO pairs from the same test cases.<n>Our approach demonstrates significant improvements in code generation tasks, as validated by experiments on benchmark datasets such as HumanEval (+), MBPP (+), APPS, LiveCodeBench, and BigCodeBench.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-27T03:15:53Z)
• 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)
• Towards Automated Formal Verification of Backend Systems with LLMs [9.66648456498893]
  We propose a novel framework that leverages functional programming and type systems to translate backend code into formal Lean representations.<n>Our pipeline automatically generates theorems that specify the intended behavior of APIs and database operations, and uses LLM-based provers to verify them.<n>We evaluate our method on realistic backend systems and find that it can formally verify over 50% of the test requirements, which suggests that half of a testing engineer's workload can be automated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-13T16:49:37Z)
• Towards Exception Safety Code Generation with Intermediate Representation Agents Framework [54.03528377384397]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) often struggle with robust exception handling in generated code, leading to fragile programs that are prone to runtime errors.<n>We propose Seeker, a novel multi-agent framework that enforces exception safety in LLM generated code through an Intermediate Representation (IR) approach.<n>Seeker decomposes exception handling into five specialized agents: Scanner, Detector, Predator, Ranker, and Handler.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-09T14:45:45Z)
• Improving LLM Reasoning through Scaling Inference Computation with Collaborative Verification [52.095460362197336]
  Large language models (LLMs) struggle with consistent and accurate reasoning. LLMs are trained primarily on correct solutions, reducing their ability to detect and learn from errors. We propose a novel collaborative method integrating Chain-of-Thought (CoT) and Program-of-Thought (PoT) solutions for verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-05T05:21:48Z)
• Fix the Tests: Augmenting LLMs to Repair Test Cases with Static Collector and Neural Reranker [9.428021853841296]
  We propose SYNTER, a novel approach to automatically repair obsolete test cases via precise and concise TROCtxs construction. With the augmentation of constructed TROCtxs, hallucinations are reduced by 57.1%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-04T04:24:43Z)
• Benchmarking Uncertainty Quantification Methods for Large Language Models with LM-Polygraph [83.90988015005934]
  Uncertainty quantification is a key element of machine learning applications.<n>We introduce a novel benchmark that implements a collection of state-of-the-art UQ baselines.<n>We conduct a large-scale empirical investigation of UQ and normalization techniques across eleven tasks, identifying the most effective approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-21T20:06:31Z)
• Benchmarking Educational Program Repair [4.981275578987307]
  Large language models (LLMs) can be used to generate learning resources, improve error messages, and provide feedback on code. There is a pressing need for standardization and benchmarks that facilitate the equitable comparison of competing approaches. In this article, we propose a novel educational program repair benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-08T18:23:59Z)
• From Misuse to Mastery: Enhancing Code Generation with Knowledge-Driven AI Chaining [16.749379740049925]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promising results in automatic code generation by improving coding efficiency to a certain extent. However, generating high-quality and reliable code remains a formidable task because of LLMs' lack of good programming practice. We propose a novel Knowledge-driven Prompt Chaining-based code generation approach, which decomposes code generation into an AI chain with iterative check-rewrite steps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-27T12:09:07Z)

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.