Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Impact of Code Language Models on Automated Program Repair

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2302.05020 v3 pith:SPAYMY2Y submitted 2023-02-10 cs.SE

Impact of Code Language Models on Automated Program Repair

classification cs.SE
keywords clmsworkbuggydatabugscodelinesautomated
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Automated program repair (APR) aims to help developers improve software reliability by generating patches for buggy programs. Although many code language models (CLM) are developed and effective in many software tasks such as code completion, there has been little comprehensive, in-depth work to evaluate CLMs' fixing capabilities and to fine-tune CLMs for the APR task. Firstly, this work is the first to evaluate ten CLMs on four APR benchmarks, which shows that surprisingly, the best CLM, as is, fixes 72% more bugs than the state-of-the-art deep-learning (DL)-based APR techniques. Secondly, one of the four APR benchmarks was created by us in this paper to avoid data leaking for a fair evaluation. Thirdly, it is the first work to fine-tune CLMs with APR training data, which shows that fine-tuning brings 31%-1,267% improvement to CLMs and enables them to fix 46%-164% more bugs than existing DL-based APR techniques. Fourthly, this work studies the impact of buggy lines, showing that CLMs, as is, cannot make good use of the buggy lines to fix bugs, yet fine-tuned CLMs could potentially over-rely on buggy lines. Lastly, this work analyzes the size, time, and memory efficiency of different CLMs. This work shows promising directions for the APR domain, such as fine-tuning CLMs with APR-specific designs, and also raises awareness of fair and comprehensive evaluations of CLMs and calls for more transparent reporting of open-source repositories used in the pre-training data to address the data leaking problem.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Is Your Code Generated by ChatGPT Really Correct? Rigorous Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code Generation

    cs.SE 2023-05 accept novelty 7.0

    EvalPlus augments HumanEval with 80x more tests via LLM and mutation strategies, exposing up to 28.9% more incorrect LLM-generated code and reversing some model performance rankings.

  2. LiveCodeBench: Holistic and Contamination Free Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code

    cs.SE 2024-03 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    LiveCodeBench collects 400 recent contest problems to create a contamination-free benchmark evaluating LLMs on code generation and related capabilities like self-repair and execution.

  3. An Insight into Security Code Review with LLMs: Capabilities, Obstacles, and Influential Factors

    cs.SE 2024-01 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Empirical study finds LLMs outperform static analysis tools for security defect detection in code review, with DeepSeek-R1 best under commit-message plus chain-of-thought prompts.