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

--Automated Program Repair (APR) uses various tools and techniques to help developers achieve functional and error-free code faster . In recent years, Large Language Models (LLMs) have gained popularity as components in APR tool chains because of their performance and flexibility. However, training such models requires a significant amount of resources. Fine-tuning techniques have been developed to adapt pre-trained LLMs to specific tasks, such as APR, and enhance their performance at far lower computational costs than training from scratch. In this study, we empirically investigate the impact of various fine-tuning techniques on the performance of LLMs used for APR. Our experiments provide insights into the performance of a selection of state-of-the-art LLMs pre-trained on code. The evaluation is done on three popular APR benchmarks (i.e., QuixBugs, Defects4J and HumanEval-Java) and considers six different LLMs with varying parameter sizes (resp. We consider three training regimens: no fine-tuning, full fine-tuning, and parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) using LoRA and IA3. We observe that full fine-tuning techniques decrease the benchmarking performance of various models due to different data distributions and overfitting. By using parameter-efficient fine-tuning methods, we restrict models in the amount of trainable parameters and achieve better results. Index T erms --large language models, automated program repair, parameter-efficient fine-tuning, AI4Code, AI4SE, ML4SE. Software development, maintenance, and evolution are expensive processes, both in terms of money and time [1]. Supporting the efficiency of software engineers responsible for these workflows can save significant resources and enable companies to speed up the production and delivery of products without loss of quality. One of the key challenges that software engineers face is the occurrence of software defects, or bugs, which are unintended errors in the code that cause deviations from expected behavior. These defects vary in complexity, from simple one-line syntax errors to intricate multi-line logic bugs that can span multiple files and components. Automated Program Repair (APR) aims to support developers with the software maintenance and evolution process, by helping them to fix any bugs they encounter and achieve their goals faster.

Automatic program repair (APR) aims to reduce the manual efforts required to identify and fix errors in source code. Before the rise of LLM-based agents, a common strategy was to increase the number of generated patches, sometimes to the thousands, to achieve better repair results on benchmarks. More recently, self-iterative capabilities enabled LLMs to refine patches over multiple rounds guided by feedback. However, literature often focuses on many iterations and disregards different numbers of outputs. We investigate an APR pipeline that balances these two approaches, the generation of multiple outputs and multiple rounds of iteration, while imposing a limit of 10 total patches per bug. We apply three SOTA instruction-tuned LLMs - DeepSeekCoder-Instruct, Codellama-Instruct, Llama3.1-Instruct - to the APR task. We further fine-tune each model on an APR dataset with three sizes (1K, 30K, 65K) and two techniques (Full Fine-Tuning and LoRA), allowing us to assess their repair capabilities on two APR benchmarks: HumanEval-Java and Defects4J. Our results show that by using only a fraction (<1%) of the fine-tuning dataset, we can achieve improvements of up to 78% in the number of plausible patches generated, challenging prior studies that reported limited gains using Full Fine-Tuning. However, we find that exceeding certain thresholds leads to diminishing outcomes, likely due to overfitting. Moreover, we show that base models greatly benefit from creating patches in an iterative fashion rather than generating them all at once. In addition, the benefit of iterative strategies becomes more pronounced in complex benchmarks. Even fine-tuned models, while benefiting less from iterations, still gain advantages, particularly on complex benchmarks. The research underscores the need for balanced APR strategies that combine multi-output generation and iterative refinement.

LLM-based automated program repair methods have attracted significant attention for their state-of-the-art performance. However, they were primarily evaluated on a few well known datasets like Defects4J, raising questions about their effectiveness on new datasets. In this study, we evaluate 11 top-performing LLMs on DEFECTS4J-TRANS, a new dataset derived from transforming Defects4J while maintaining the original semantics. Results from experiments on both Defects4J and DEFECTS4J-TRANS show that all studied LLMs have limited generalizability in APR tasks, with the average number of correct and plausible patches decreasing by 49.48% and 42.90%, respectively, on DEFECTS4J-TRANS. Further investigation into incorporating additional repair-relevant information in repair prompts reveals that, although this information significantly enhances the LLMs' capabilities (increasing the number of correct and plausible patches by up to 136.67% and 121.82%, respectively), performance still falls short of their original results. This indicates that prompt engineering alone is insufficient to substantially enhance LLMs' repair capabilities. Based on our study, we also offer several recommendations for future research.

Agent-based program repair offers to automatically resolve complex bugs end-to-end by combining the planning, tool use, and code generation abilities of modern LLMs. Recent work has explored the use of agent-based repair approaches on the popular open-source SWE-Bench, a collection of bugs from highly-rated GitHub Python projects. In addition, various agentic approaches such as SWE-Agent have been proposed to solve bugs in this benchmark. This paper explores the viability of using an agentic approach to address bugs in an enterprise context. To investigate this, we curate an evaluation set of 178 bugs drawn from Google's issue tracking system. This dataset spans both human-reported (78) and machine-reported bugs (100). To establish a repair performance baseline on this benchmark, we implement Passerine, an agent similar in spirit to SWE-Agent that can work within Google's development environment. We show that with 20 trajectory samples and Gemini 1.5 Pro, Passerine can produce a patch that passes bug tests (i.e., plausible) for 73% of machine-reported and 25.6% of human-reported bugs in our evaluation set. After manual examination, we found that 43% of machine-reported bugs and 17.9% of human-reported bugs have at least one patch that is semantically equivalent to the ground-truth patch. These results establish a baseline on an industrially relevant benchmark, which as we show, contains bugs drawn from a different distribution -- in terms of language diversity, size, and spread of changes, etc. -- compared to those in the popular SWE-Bench dataset.

LLMs have garnered considerable attention for their potential to streamline Automated Program Repair (APR). LLM-based approaches can either insert the correct code or directly generate patches when provided with buggy methods. However, most of LLM-based APR methods rely on a single type of software information, without fully leveraging different software artifacts. Despite this, many LLM-based approaches do not explore which specific types of information best assist in APR. Addressing this gap is crucial for advancing LLM-based APR techniques. We propose DEVLoRe to use issue content (description and message) and stack error traces to localize buggy methods, then rely on debug information in buggy methods and issue content and stack error to localize buggy lines and generate plausible patches which can pass all unit tests. The results show that while issue content is particularly effective in assisting LLMs with fault localization and program repair, different types of software artifacts complement each other. By incorporating different artifacts, DEVLoRe successfully locates 49.3% and 47.6% of single and non-single buggy methods and generates 56.0% and 14.5% plausible patches for the Defects4J v2.0 dataset, respectively. This outperforms current state-of-the-art APR methods. The source code and experimental results of this work for replication are available at https://github.com/XYZboom/DEVLoRe.

In this paper, we first show that increases in beam size of even just small-sized LLM (1B-7B parameters) require an extensive GPU resource consumption, leading to up to 80% of recurring crashes due to memory overloads in LLM-based APR. Seemingly simple solutions to reduce memory consumption are (1) to quantize LLM models, i.e., converting the weights of a LLM from high-precision values to lower-precision ones. and (2) to make beam search sequential, i.e., forwarding each beam through the model sequentially and then concatenate them back into a single model output. However, we show that these approaches still do not work via both theoretical analysis and experiments. To address this, we introduce FLAMES, a novel LLM-based APR technique that employs semantic-guided patch generation to enhance repair effectiveness and memory efficiency. Unlike conventional methods that rely on beam search, FLAMES utilizes greedy decoding to enhance memory efficiency while steering the search to more potentially good repair candidates via a semantic-guided best-first search algorithm. At each decoding step, FLAMES uses semantic feedback from test validation such as the number of passing and failing test cases to select the most promising token to explore further. Our empirical evaluation on the Defects4J and HumanEval-Java datasets shows that FLAMES not only substantially reduces memory consumption by up to 83% compared to conventional LLM-based APR, but also accelerates the repair process. Remarkably, FLAMES successfully generated 133 and 103 correct fixes for 333 and 163 bugs in the Defects4J and HumanEval-Java datasets, respectively. This suggests that FLAMES is not only more efficient but also outperforms state-of-the-art techniques, fixing at least 10 and 11 more bugs than SOTA baselines in the Defects4J and HumanEval-Java datasets, respectively.

Automated program repair (APR) has achieved promising results, especially using neural networks. Yet, the overwhelming majority of patches produced by APR tools are confined to one single location. When looking at the patches produced with neural repair, most of them fail to compile, while a few uncompilable ones go in the right direction. In both cases, the fundamental problem is to ignore the potential of partial patches. In this paper, we propose an iterative program repair paradigm called ITER founded on the concept of improving partial patches until they become plausible and correct. First, ITER iteratively improves partial single-location patches by fixing compilation errors and further refining the previously generated code. Second, ITER iteratively improves partial patches to construct multi-location patches, with fault localization re-execution. ITER is implemented for Java based on battle-proven deep neural networks and code representation. ITER is evaluated on 476 bugs from 10 open-source projects in Defects4J 2.0. ITER succeeds in repairing 15.5% of them, including 9 uniquely repaired multi-location bugs.

Large language models (LLM) have proven to be effective at automated program repair (APR). However, using LLMs can be costly, with companies invoicing users by the number of tokens. In this paper, we propose CigaR, the first LLM-based APR tool that focuses on minimizing the repair cost. CigaR works in two major steps: generating a first plausible patch and multiplying plausible patches. CigaR optimizes the prompts and the prompt setting to maximize the information given to LLMs using the smallest possible number of tokens. Our experiments on 429 bugs from the widely used Defects4J and HumanEval-Java datasets shows that CigaR reduces the token cost by 73%. On average, CigaR spends 127k tokens per bug while the baseline uses 467k tokens per bug. On the subset of bugs that are fixed by both, CigaR spends 20k per bug while the baseline uses 608k tokens, a cost saving of 96%. Our extensive experiments show that CigaR is a cost-effective LLM-based program repair tool that uses a low number of tokens to automatically generate patches.

Research shows that grammatical mistakes in a sentence can be corrected by translating it to another language and back using neural machine translation with language models. We investigate whether this correction capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) extends to Automatic Program Repair (APR). Current generative models for 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. We hypothesize that RTT with LLMs restores the most commonly seen patterns in code during pre-training, i.e., performs a regression toward the mean, which removes bugs as they are a form of noise w.r.t. the more frequent, natural, bug-free code in the training data. To test this hypothesis, we employ eight recent LLMs pre-trained on code, including the latest GPT versions, and four common program repair benchmarks in Java. We find that RTT with English as an intermediate language repaired 101 of 164 bugs with GPT-4 on the HumanEval-Java dataset. Moreover, 46 of these are unique bugs that are not repaired by other LLMs fine-tuned for APR. Our findings highlight the viability of round-trip translation with LLMs as a technique for automated program repair and its potential for research in software engineering. Keywords: automated program repair, large language model, machine translation