Graph neural networks (GNNs) have emerged as a powerful tool for learning software engineering tasks including code completion, bug finding, and program repair. They benefit from leveraging program structure like control flow graphs, but they are not well-suited to tasks like program execution that require far more sequential reasoning steps than number of GNN propagation steps. Recurrent neural networks (RNNs), on the other hand, are well-suited to long sequential chains of reasoning, but they do not naturally incorporate program structure and generally perform worse on the above tasks. Our aim is to achieve the best of both worlds, and we do so by introducing a novel GNN architecture, the Instruction Pointer Attention Graph Neural Networks (IPA-GNN), which achieves improved systematic generalization on the task of learning to execute programs using control flow graphs. The model arises by considering RNNs operating on program traces with branch decisions as latent variables. The IPA-GNN can be seen either as a continuous relaxation of the RNN model or as a GNN variant more tailored to execution. To test the models, we propose evaluating systematic generalization on learning to execute using control flow graphs, which tests sequential reasoning and use of program structure. More practically, we evaluate these models on the task of learning to execute partial programs, as might arise if using the model as a heuristic function in program synthesis. Results show that the IPA-GNN outperforms a variety of RNN and GNN baselines on both tasks.

Graph neural networks (GNNs) have emerged as a powerful tool for learning software engineering tasks including code completion, bug finding, and program repair. They benefit from leveraging program structure like control flow graphs, but they are not well-suited to tasks like program execution that require far more sequential reasoning steps than number of GNN propagation steps. Recurrent neural networks (RNNs), on the other hand, are well-suited to long sequential chains of reasoning, but they do not naturally incorporate program structure and generally perform worse on the above tasks. Our aim is to achieve the best of both worlds, and we do so by introducing a novel GNN architecture, the Instruction Pointer Attention Graph Neural Networks (IPA-GNN), which achieves improved systematic generalization on the task of learning to execute programs using control flow graphs. The model arises by considering RNNs operating on program traces with branch decisions as latent variables.

Program errors can occur in any type of programming, and can manifest in a variety of ways, such as unexpected output, crashes, or performance issues. And program error diagnosis can often be too abstract or technical for developers to understand, especially for beginners. The goal of this paper is to present a novel machine-learning approach for Multi-task Program Error Repair and Explanatory Diagnosis (mPRED). A pre-trained language model is used to encode the source code, and a downstream model is specifically designed to identify and repair errors. Programs and test cases will be augmented and optimized from several perspectives. Additionally, our approach incorporates a "chain of thoughts" method, which enables the models to produce intermediate reasoning explanations before providing the final correction. To aid in visualizing and analyzing the program structure, we use a graph neural network for program structure visualization. Overall, our approach offers a promising approach for repairing program errors across different programming languages and providing helpful explanations to programmers.

Graph neural networks (GNNs) have emerged as a powerful tool for learning software engineering tasks including code completion, bug finding, and program repair. They benefit from leveraging program structure like control flow graphs, but they are not well-suited to tasks like program execution that require far more sequential reasoning steps than number of GNN propagation steps. Recurrent neural networks (RNNs), on the other hand, are well-suited to long sequential chains of reasoning, but they do not naturally incorporate program structure and generally perform worse on the above tasks. Our aim is to achieve the best of both worlds, and we do so by introducing a novel GNN architecture, the Instruction Pointer Attention Graph Neural Networks (IPA-GNN), which achieves improved systematic generalization on the task of learning to execute programs using control flow graphs. The model arises by considering RNNs operating on program traces with branch decisions as latent variables.

Large Language Models (LLMs) (e.g., ChatGPT) have shown impressive performance in code generation. LLMs take prompts as inputs, and Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting is the state-of-the-art prompting technique. CoT prompting asks LLMs first to generate CoTs (i.e., intermediate natural language reasoning steps) and then output the code. However, CoT prompting is designed for natural language generation and has low accuracy in code generation. In this paper, we propose Structured CoTs (SCoTs) and present a novel prompting technique for code generation, named SCoT prompting. Our motivation is source code contains rich structural information and any code can be composed of three program structures (i.e., sequence, branch, and loop structures). Intuitively, structured intermediate reasoning steps make for structured source code. Thus, we ask LLMs to use program structures to build CoTs, obtaining SCoTs. Then, LLMs generate the final code based on SCoTs. Compared to CoT prompting, SCoT prompting explicitly constrains LLMs to think about how to solve requirements from the view of source code and further the performance of LLMs in code generation. We apply SCoT prompting to two LLMs (i.e., ChatGPT and Codex) and evaluate it on three benchmarks (i.e., HumanEval, MBPP, and MBCPP). (1) SCoT prompting outperforms the state-of-the-art baseline - CoT prompting by up to 13.79% in Pass@1. (2) Human evaluation shows human developers prefer programs from SCoT prompting. (3) SCoT prompting is robust to examples and achieves substantial improvements.