With the emergence and rapid evolution of large language models (LLM), automating coding tasks has become an important research topic. Many efforts are underway and literature abounds about the efficacy of models and their ability to generate code. A less explored aspect of code generation is for new algorithms, where the training dataset would not have included any previous example of similar code. In this paper we propose a new methodology for writing code from scratch for a new algorithm using LLM assistance, and describe enhancement of a previously developed code-translation tool, Code-Scribe, for new code generation.

Evaluating test cases automatically generated by Large Language Models (LLMs) is a critical yet challenging task. Existing benchmarks suffer from high computational costs, score inflation, and a bias towards trivial bugs over rare, critical faults. In this work, we ask two fundamental questions: (1) What is the minimal set of wrong codes sufficient to represent the entire error space? and (2) What is the minimal set of test cases needed to distinguish them? We introduce a framework that formalizes benchmark construction as finding an optimal diagnostic basis in a binary code-test matrix. The rank of this matrix specifies the minimal number of independent error patterns (wrong codes) and provides a tight upper bound on the number of test cases required for complete fault coverage. Our objective is to identify a basis of size equal to the matrix rank that maximizes internal diversity. To tackle this NP-hard problem, we propose WrongSelect, an efficient approximation algorithm to select maximally diverse wrong codes. Applying this framework to millions of competitive programming submissions, we construct TC-Bench, a compact, diverse, and inflation-resistant benchmark. Extensive experiments show that even the most advanced test case generation methods achieve only ~60% exclusion rates on TC-Bench, exposing a significant gap in their diagnostic power. Our dataset is available at: https://huggingface.co/datasets/Luoberta/TC-Bench and our code is at: https://github.com/Luowaterbi/TC-Bench.

APR (Automated Program Repair) aims to automatically locate program defects, generate patches and validate the repairs. Existing techniques for APR are often combined with LLMs (Large Language Models), which leverages the code-related knowledge of LLMs to improve repair effectiveness. Current LLM-based APR methods typically utilize test cases only during the inference stage, adopting an iterative approach that performs repair first and validates it through test execution afterward. This conventional paradigm neglects two important aspects: the potential contribution of test cases in the training phase, and the possibility of leveraging testing prior to repair. To address this, we propose Repair-R1, which introduces test cases into the model's training phase and shifts test generation to precede repair. The model is required to first generate discriminative test cases that can distinguish defective behaviors, and then perform repair based on these tests. This enables the model to better locate defects and understand the underlying causes of defects, thereby improving repair effectiveness. We implement Repair-R1 with three different backbone models, using RL (reinforcement learning) to co-optimize test generation and bug repair. Experimental results on four widely adopted benchmarks demonstrate the superiority of Repair-R1. Specially, compared to vanilla models, Repair-R1 improves repair success rate by 2.68\% to 48.29\%, test generation success rate by 16.38\% to 53.28\%, and test coverage by 0.78\% to 53.96\%. We publish the code and weights at https://github.com/Tomsawyerhu/APR-RL and https://huggingface.co/tomhu/Qwen3-4B-RL-5000-step.

LLM-based assistants, such as GitHub Copilot and ChatGPT, have the potential to generate code that fulfills a programming task described in a natural language description, referred to as a prompt. The widespread accessibility of these assistants enables users with diverse backgrounds to generate code and integrate it into software projects. However, studies show that code generated by LLMs is prone to bugs and may miss various corner cases in task specifications. Presenting such buggy code to users can impact their reliability and trust in LLM-based assistants. Moreover, significant efforts are required by the user to detect and repair any bug present in the code, especially if no test cases are available. In this study, we propose a self-refinement method aimed at improving the reliability of code generated by LLMs by minimizing the number of bugs before execution, without human intervention, and in the absence of test cases. Our approach is based on targeted Verification Questions (VQs) to identify potential bugs within the initial code. These VQs target various nodes within the Abstract Syntax Tree (AST) of the initial code, which have the potential to trigger specific types of bug patterns commonly found in LLM-generated code. Finally, our method attempts to repair these potential bugs by re-prompting the LLM with the targeted VQs and the initial code. Our evaluation, based on programming tasks in the CoderEval dataset, demonstrates that our proposed method outperforms state-of-the-art methods by decreasing the number of targeted errors in the code between 21% to 62% and improving the number of executable code instances to 13%.

In the domain of chip design, Hardware Description Languages (HDLs) play a pivotal role. However, due to the complex syntax of HDLs and the limited availability of online resources, debugging HDL codes remains a difficult and time-intensive task, even for seasoned engineers. Consequently, there is a pressing need to develop automated HDL code debugging models, which can alleviate the burden on hardware engineers. Despite the strong capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) in generating, completing, and debugging software code, their utilization in the specialized field of HDL debugging has been limited and, to date, has not yielded satisfactory results. In this paper, we propose an LLM-assisted HDL debugging framework, namely HDLdebugger, which consists of HDL debugging data generation via a reverse engineering approach, a search engine for retrieval-augmented generation, and a retrieval-augmented LLM fine-tuning approach. Through the integration of these components, HDLdebugger can automate and streamline HDL debugging for chip design. Our comprehensive experiments, conducted on an HDL code dataset sourced from Huawei, reveal that HDLdebugger outperforms 13 cutting-edge LLM baselines, displaying exceptional effectiveness in HDL code debugging.

In computer science education, test cases are an integral part of programming assignments since they can be used as assessment items to test students' programming knowledge and provide personalized feedback on student-written code. The goal of our work is to propose a fully automated approach for test case generation that can accurately measure student knowledge, which is important for two reasons. First, manually constructing test cases requires expert knowledge and is a labor-intensive process. Second, developing test cases for students, especially those who are novice programmers, is significantly different from those oriented toward professional-level software developers. Therefore, we need an automated process for test case generation to assess student knowledge and provide feedback. In this work, we propose a large language model-based approach to automatically generate test cases and show that they are good measures of student knowledge, using a publicly available dataset that contains student-written Java code. We also discuss future research directions centered on using test cases to help students.

Identifying and resolving logic errors can be one of the most frustrating challenges for novices programmers. Unlike syntax errors, for which a compiler or interpreter can issue a message, logic errors can be subtle. In certain conditions, buggy code may even exhibit correct behavior -- in other cases, the issue might be about how a problem statement has been interpreted. Such errors can be hard to spot when reading the code, and they can also at times be missed by automated tests. There is great educational potential in automatically detecting logic errors, especially when paired with suitable feedback for novices. Large language models (LLMs) have recently demonstrated surprising performance for a range of computing tasks, including generating and explaining code. These capabilities are closely linked to code syntax, which aligns with the next token prediction behavior of LLMs. On the other hand, logic errors relate to the runtime performance of code and thus may not be as well suited to analysis by LLMs. To explore this, we investigate the performance of two popular LLMs, GPT-3 and GPT-4, for detecting and providing a novice-friendly explanation of logic errors. We compare LLM performance with a large cohort of introductory computing students $(n=964)$ solving the same error detection task. Through a mixed-methods analysis of student and model responses, we observe significant improvement in logic error identification between the previous and current generation of LLMs, and find that both LLM generations significantly outperform students. We outline how such models could be integrated into computing education tools, and discuss their potential for supporting students when learning programming.

This paper evaluates the capability of two state-of-the-art artificial intelligence (AI) models, GPT-3.5 and Bard, in generating Java code given a function description. We sourced the descriptions from CodingBat.com, a popular online platform that provides practice problems to learn programming. We compared the Java code generated by both models based on correctness, verified through the platform's own test cases. The results indicate clear differences in the capabilities of the two models. GPT-3.5 demonstrated superior performance, generating correct code for approximately 90.6% of the function descriptions, whereas Bard produced correct code for 53.1% of the functions. While both models exhibited strengths and weaknesses, these findings suggest potential avenues for the development and refinement of more advanced AI-assisted code generation tools. The study underlines the potential of AI in automating and supporting aspects of software development, although further research is required to fully realize this potential.

MIT researchers have developed a machine-learning system that can comb through repairs to open-source computer programs and learn their general properties, in order to produce new repairs for a different set of programs. The researchers tested their system on a set of programming errors, culled from real open-source applications, that had been compiled to evaluate automatic bug-repair systems. Where those earlier systems were able to repair one or two of the bugs, the MIT system repaired between 15 and 18, depending on whether it settled on the first solution it found or was allowed to run longer. While an automatic bug-repair tool would be useful in its own right, professor of electrical engineering and computer science Martin Rinard, whose group developed the new system, believes that the work could have broader ramifications. "One of the most intriguing aspects of this research is that we've found that there are indeed universal properties of correct code that you can learn from one set of applications and apply to another set of applications," Rinard says.

Here's yet another new application of machine learning: MIT has developed a system for fixing errors in bug-riddled code. The new machine-learning system developed by researchers at MIT can fix roughly 10 times as many errors as its predecessors could, the researchers say. They presented a paper describing the new system, dubbed "Prophet," at the Principles of Programming Languages symposium last month. Essentially, the system works by studying patches already made to open-source computer programs in the past in order to learn their general properties. Prophet was given 777 errors and fixes in eight common open-source applications stored in the online repository GitHub.