pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.03378 · v1 · pith:QIIPD7EUnew · submitted 2026-06-02 · 💻 cs.SE

Neural Change Prediction: Relating Software Changes to Their Effects and Vice Versa

Laura Plein , Souhila Zidane , Jordan Samhi , Andreas Zeller This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 09:07 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.SE
keywords neural change predictionsoftware mutationsbehavior effectscode change predictionfeature localizationsoftware repaireffect predictiondynamic analysis
0
0 comments X

The pith

Neural Change Prediction trains models on mutation pairs to predict code edits from desired behavior changes and behavior changes from code edits.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper introduces Neural Change Prediction as a method to learn associations between software changes and their effects on program behavior. It generates training data by automatically mutating code in a given program, executing it on test inputs, and recording how each mutation alters the output. Models built from these pairs support two directions: suggesting where and how to change code to achieve a target output shift, and forecasting the output impact of a proposed code change. The technique needs no manual inspection of code semantics and applies to any executable program whose outputs can be observed. Demonstrations include a case study on CSS configuration files and an evaluation on Python programs.

Core claim

Neural Change Prediction generates numerous (changes to software, changes in behavior)-pairs by automatically mutating programs and observing output differences on test inputs, then trains models on these pairs to enable bidirectional prediction between code modifications and their dynamic effects.

What carries the argument

The automatic creation of (changes to software, changes in behavior)-pairs from mutations, which serve as training data for models that map between code edits and output effects in both directions.

If this is right

  • For a desired change in program behavior, the models can predict the code locations and modifications needed.
  • For a given code change, the models can predict the resulting change in program output.
  • The approach supports tasks such as feature localization, software evolution, and automated repair.
  • It requires only the ability to execute the program and observe outputs, with no prior semantic knowledge of the code.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If generalization holds, the technique could integrate into development environments to suggest edits during debugging sessions.
  • The mutation-based data generation might be extended with more targeted operators to better approximate real-world change distributions.
  • Applying the same pairing process to other executable artifacts, such as configuration systems or data pipelines, could yield similar predictive models.

Load-bearing premise

Models trained on pairs from automatic mutations will generalize to produce useful predictions for real developer tasks and unseen code changes.

What would settle it

Evaluating the trained models on a collection of actual developer-submitted changes and measuring whether their predictions of output effects match the observed effects at rates significantly above chance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.03378 by Andreas Zeller, Jordan Samhi, Laura Plein, Souhila Zidane.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Selection and mutation of the relevant CSS rule from candidate CSS rules. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Overview of Neural Change Prediction, illustrated with Python projects. The pipeline is composed of four steps: (1) collection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Workflow of our model. Given a program, its input, and its output, the model answers three questions: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overview of the intent driven CSS mutation pipeline [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example usage of the trained model as part of an AI tool for CSS editing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Much of software development revolves around understanding the relationship between software changes and their effects. If we could learn and predict those relationships, such predictions could benefit several areas of software engineering. While recent advances in artificial intelligence have shown great promise in software engineering tasks, predicting the semantics of code without executing it remains a big challenge. In this paper, we present Neural Change Prediction, a novel and fundamental technique to learn and predict associations between software changes and their dynamic effects on program behavior. Specifically, for a given program and test inputs, we automatically apply numerous mutations to the code and observe how these changes alter the program's output. From these (changes to software, changes in behavior)-pairs, we create models that: (1) for a desired change in behavior, predict where and how the code should be changed (feature localization, software evolution, and software repair); and (2) for a given code change, predict how this code change affects the output (effect prediction). We have conducted a detailed case study on CSS configuration files and an evaluation on Python programs to demonstrate the generality and wide applicability of Neural Change Prediction. While Neural Change Prediction requires numerous mutations (and thus numerous executions of the program under test), Neural Change Prediction is fully automatic and does not require any prior knowledge of the code or its semantics, making it applicable to any software artifact that can be executed and whose output can be observed.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Neural Change Prediction, a technique that automatically generates (code mutation, behavioral effect) pairs by applying numerous mutations to a program under given test inputs and observing output changes. These pairs are used to train models for two directions: (1) predicting the location and nature of code changes needed to achieve a desired behavioral change (supporting feature localization, evolution, and repair), and (2) predicting the behavioral effects of a given code change. The method is claimed to be fully automatic, requiring no prior semantic knowledge, and is demonstrated via a case study on CSS configuration files plus an evaluation on Python programs.

Significance. If the central claims hold and the learned models generalize beyond the synthetic mutation distribution to support useful predictions on real developer changes, the approach could provide a novel, general data-driven foundation for multiple software engineering tasks by directly relating changes to dynamic effects without manual feature engineering or domain-specific rules.

major comments (1)
  1. [Evaluation on Python programs] Evaluation on Python programs: the manuscript must explicitly report whether the held-out test changes used to assess prediction accuracy were drawn from real commits/version history or generated via the same automatic mutation process used for training data. This distinction is load-bearing for the claim that the models enable 'useful predictions for real development tasks' such as repair and feature localization, as the skeptic note and abstract provide no such evidence of out-of-distribution generalization.
minor comments (1)
  1. The abstract summarizes the method and claims but supplies no quantitative results, error metrics, or model details from the case study or Python evaluation; adding a concise summary of key performance numbers would improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback. The single major comment raises an important point about the nature of the evaluation data, which we address directly below. We will revise the manuscript accordingly to improve clarity and align claims with the presented evidence.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Evaluation on Python programs] Evaluation on Python programs: the manuscript must explicitly report whether the held-out test changes used to assess prediction accuracy were drawn from real commits/version history or generated via the same automatic mutation process used for training data. This distinction is load-bearing for the claim that the models enable 'useful predictions for real development tasks' such as repair and feature localization, as the skeptic note and abstract provide no such evidence of out-of-distribution generalization.

    Authors: We agree that this distinction is critical and that the current manuscript does not explicitly state it. The held-out test changes used in the Python evaluation were generated via the same automatic mutation process as the training data (i.e., in-distribution with respect to the synthetic mutation distribution). The manuscript makes no claim of, and presents no evidence for, generalization to real developer commits from version history. We will revise the evaluation section to explicitly report this fact, and we will adjust the discussion of applicability to real tasks (including in the abstract and skeptic note) to reflect that the current results demonstrate learning within the mutation distribution but do not yet address out-of-distribution generalization to real changes. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; standard mutation-based data generation plus ML training

full rationale

The paper's core procedure generates (change, effect) pairs exclusively by applying mutations to code and observing output changes, then trains models on those pairs. No equations, fitted parameters, or derivations are presented that reduce any claimed prediction back to the inputs by construction. No self-citations are invoked as load-bearing uniqueness results or ansatzes. The approach is a conventional empirical pipeline (data synthesis followed by supervised learning) whose validity rests on external evaluation rather than definitional equivalence. This matches the default expectation of no significant circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract provides no information on free parameters, axioms, or invented entities used by the approach.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5787 in / 1186 out tokens · 34319 ms · 2026-06-28T09:07:13.999296+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Rui Abreu, Peter Zoeteweij, and Arjan JC Van Gemund. 2007. On the accuracy of spectrum-based fault localization. InTesting: Academic and industrial conference practice and research techniques-MUTATION (TAICPART-MUTATION 2007). IEEE, 89–98

    2007

  2. [2]

    1996.Software change impact analysis

    Robert S Arnold. 1996.Software change impact analysis. IEEE Computer Society Press

    1996

  3. [3]

    Jacob Austin, Augustus Odena, Maxwell Nye, Maarten Bosma, Henryk Michalewski, David Dohan, Ellen Jiang, Carrie Cai, Michael Terry, Quoc Le, et al. 2021. Program synthesis with large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07732(2021)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Islem Bouzenia, Premkumar Devanbu, and Michael Pradel. 2025. Repairagent: An autonomous, llm-based agent for program repair. In2025 IEEE/ACM 47th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). IEEE, 2188–2200

    2025

  5. [5]

    Truong Hai Dang, Jingyu Xiao, and Yintong Huo. 2025. Envisioning Future Interactive Web Development: Editing Webpage with Natural Language. arXiv:2510.26516 [cs.SE] https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.26516

    work page arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Anna Derezińska and Konrad Hałas. 2014. Analysis of mutation operators for the Python language. InProceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Dependability and Complex Systems DepCoS-RELCOMEX. June 30–July 4, 2014, Brunów, Poland. Springer, 155–164

    2014

  7. [7]

    Bogdan Dit, Meghan Revelle, Malcom Gethers, and Denys Poshyvanyk. 2013. Feature location in source code: a taxonomy and survey.Journal of software: Evolution and Process25, 1 (2013), 53–95

    2013

  8. [8]

    Zhili Huang, Ling Xu, Chao Liu, Weifeng Sun, Xu Zhang, Yan Lei, Meng Yan, and Hongyu Zhang. 2025. DynaFix: Iterative Automated Program Repair Driven by Execution-Level Dynamic Information.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.24635(2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    Yue Jia and Mark Harman. 2011. An Analysis and Survey of the Development of Mutation Testing.IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering37, 5 (2011), 649–678. doi:10.1109/TSE.2010.62 Neural Change Prediction 33

    work page doi:10.1109/tse.2010.62 2011

  10. [10]

    Lingjie Jiang, Shaohan Huang, Xun Wu, Yixia Li, Dongdong Zhang, and Furu Wei. 2025. Viscodex: Unified multimodal code generation via merging vision and coding models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.09945(2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    James A Jones, Mary Jean Harrold, and John Stasko. 2002. Visualization of test information to assist fault localization. InProceedings of the 24th international conference on Software engineering. 467–477

    2002

  12. [12]

    Tae Soo Kim, DaEun Choi, Yoonseo Choi, and Juho Kim. 2022. Stylette: Styling the Web with Natural Language. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(New Orleans, LA, USA)(CHI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 5, 17 pages. doi:10.1145/3491102.3501931

    work page doi:10.1145/3491102.3501931 2022

  13. [13]

    Kim N King and A Jefferson Offutt. 1991. A FORTRAN language system for mutation-based software testing.Software: Practice and Experience21, 7 (1991), 685–718

    1991

  14. [14]

    Anil Koyuncu, Kui Liu, Tegawendé F Bissyandé, Dongsun Kim, Jacques Klein, Martin Monperrus, and Yves Le Traon. 2020. Fixminer: Mining relevant fix patterns for automated program repair.Empirical Software Engineering25 (2020), 1980–2024

    2020

  15. [15]

    Xuan Bach D Le, David Lo, and Claire Le Goues. 2016. History driven program repair. In2016 IEEE 23rd international conference on software analysis, evolution, and reengineering (SANER), Vol. 1. IEEE, 213–224

    2016

  16. [16]

    Claire Le Goues, ThanhVu Nguyen, Stephanie Forrest, and Westley Weimer. 2011. Genprog: A generic method for automatic software repair.Ieee transactions on software engineering38, 1 (2011), 54–72

    2011

  17. [17]

    Claire Le Goues, Michael Pradel, and Abhik Roychoudhury. 2019. Automated program repair.Commun. ACM62, 12 (2019), 56–65

    2019

  18. [18]

    Bixin Li, Xiaobing Sun, Hareton Leung, and Sai Zhang. 2013. A survey of code-based change impact analysis techniques.Software Testing, Verification and Reliability23, 8 (2013), 613–646

    2013

  19. [19]

    Derrick Lin, James Koppel, Angela Chen, and Armando Solar-Lezama. 2017. QuixBugs: A multi-lingual program repair benchmark set based on the Quixey Challenge. InProceedings Companion of the 2017 ACM SIGPLAN international conference on systems, programming, languages, and applications: software for humanity. 55–56

    2017

  20. [20]

    Kui Liu, Anil Koyuncu, Tegawendé F Bissyandé, Dongsun Kim, Jacques Klein, and Yves Le Traon. 2019. You cannot fix what you cannot find! an investigation of fault localization bias in benchmarking automated program repair systems. In2019 12th IEEE conference on software testing, validation and verification (ICST). IEEE, 102–113

    2019

  21. [21]

    Kui Liu, Anil Koyuncu, Dongsun Kim, and Tegawendé F Bissyandé. 2019. Tbar: Revisiting template-based automated program repair. InProceedings of the 28th ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on software testing and analysis. 31–42

    2019

  22. [22]

    Zixin Liu, Xiaozhi Du, and Hairui Liu. 2025. ReAPR: Automatic program repair via retrieval-augmented large language models: Z. Liu, X. Du, H. Liu. Software Quality Journal33, 3 (2025), 30

    2025

  23. [23]

    Finlay Macklon and Cor-Paul Bezemer. 2025. Exploring the Capabilities of Vision-Language Models to Detect Visual Bugs in HTML5 <canvas> Applications. arXiv:2501.09236 [cs.SE] https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.09236

    work page arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Sonal Mahajan and William G. J. Halfond. April 2015. WebSee: A Tool for Debugging HTML Presentation Failures. doi:10.1109/ICST.2015.7102638

    work page doi:10.1109/icst.2015.7102638 2015

  25. [25]

    Sonal Mahajan, Bailan Li, Pooyan Behnamghader, and William G. J. Halfond. 2016. Using Visual Symptoms for Debugging Presentation Failures in Web Applications. In2016 IEEE International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation (ICST). 191–201. doi:10.1109/ICST.2016.35

    work page doi:10.1109/icst.2016.35 2016

  26. [26]

    Sergey Mechtaev, Jooyong Yi, and Abhik Roychoudhury. 2016. Angelix: Scalable multiline program patch synthesis via symbolic analysis. In Proceedings of the 38th international conference on software engineering. 691–701

    2016

  27. [27]

    Hoang Duong Thien Nguyen, Dawei Qi, Abhik Roychoudhury, and Satish Chandra. 2013. Semfix: Program repair via semantic analysis. In2013 35th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). IEEE, 772–781

    2013

  28. [28]

    Zhongqiang Pan, Chuanyi Li, Wenkang Zhong, Yi Feng, Bin Luo, and Vincent Ng. 2026. RepoRepair: Leveraging Code Documentation for Repository-Level Automated Program Repair.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.01048(2026)

    work page arXiv 2026

  29. [29]

    Mike Papadakis, Marinos Kintis, Jie Zhang, Yue Jia, Yves Le Traon, and Mark Harman. 2019. Mutation testing advances: an analysis and survey. In Advances in computers. Vol. 112. Elsevier, 275–378

    2019

  30. [30]

    Laura Plein, Wendkûuni C Ouédraogo, Jacques Klein, and Tegawendé F Bissyandé. 2024. Automatic generation of test cases based on bug reports: A feasibility study with large language models. InProceedings of the 2024 IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings. 360–361

    2024

  31. [31]

    Xiaoxia Ren, Fenil Shah, Frank Tip, Barbara G Ryder, and Ophelia Chesley. 2004. Chianti: a tool for change impact analysis of java programs. In Proceedings of the 19th annual ACM SIGPLAN conference on Object-oriented programming, systems, languages, and applications. 432–448

    2004

  32. [32]

    Barbara G Ryder and Frank Tip. 2001. Change impact analysis for object-oriented programs. InProceedings of the 2001 ACM SIGPLAN-SIGSOFT workshop on Program analysis for software tools and engineering. 46–53

    2001

  33. [33]

    Kensen Shi, Deniz Altınbüken, Saswat Anand, Mihai Christodorescu, Katja Grünwedel, Alexa Koenings, Sai Naidu, Anurag Pathak, Marc Rasi, Fredde Ribeiro, et al. 2025. Natural language outlines for code: Literate programming in the LLM era. InProceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on the Foundations of Software Engineering. 150–161

    2025

  34. [34]

    Yuxuan Wan, Chaozheng Wang, Yi Dong, Wenxuan Wang, Shuqing Li, Yintong Huo, and Michael Lyu. 2025. Divide-and-Conquer: Generating UI Code from Screenshots.Proceedings of the ACM on Software Engineering2, FSE (June 2025), 2099–2122. doi:10.1145/3729364

    work page doi:10.1145/3729364 2025

  35. [35]

    Hanbin Wang, Xiaoxuan Zhou, Zhipeng Xu, Keyuan Cheng, Yuxin Zuo, Kai Tian, Jingwei Song, Junting Lu, Wenhui Hu, and Xueyang Liu. 2025. Code-vision: Evaluating multimodal LLMs logic understanding and code generation capabilities.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.11829(2025). 34 Plein et al

    work page arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Yuxiang Wei, Zhiqing Sun, Emily McMilin, Jonas Gehring, David Zhang, Gabriel Synnaeve, Daniel Fried, Lingming Zhang, and Sida Wang. 2025. Toward training superintelligent software agents through self-play swe-rl.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.18552(2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    W Eric Wong, Ruizhi Gao, Yihao Li, Rui Abreu, and Franz Wotawa. 2016. A survey on software fault localization.IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering42, 8 (2016), 707–740

    2016

  38. [38]

    Chunqiu Steven Xia, Yuxiang Wei, and Lingming Zhang. 2023. Automated program repair in the era of large pre-trained language models. In2023 IEEE/ACM 45th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). IEEE, 1482–1494

    2023

  39. [39]

    Jinqiu Yang, Alexey Zhikhartsev, Yuefei Liu, and Lin Tan. 2017. Better test cases for better automated program repair. InProceedings of the 2017 11th joint meeting on foundations of software engineering. 831–841

    2017

  40. [40]

    Xin Yin, Chao Ni, Shaohua Wang, Zhenhao Li, Limin Zeng, and Xiaohu Yang. 2024. Thinkrepair: Self-directed automated program repair. In Proceedings of the 33rd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis. 1274–1286

    2024

  41. [41]

    Jiayi Zhang, Kai Huang, Jian Zhang, Yang Liu, and Chunyang Chen. 2025. Repair Ingredients Are All You Need: Improving Large Language Model-Based Program Repair via Repair Ingredients Search.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.23100(2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    Quanjun Zhang, Chunrong Fang, Yuxiang Ma, Weisong Sun, and Zhenyu Chen. 2023. A survey of learning-based automated program repair.ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology33, 2 (2023), 1–69

    2023

  43. [43]

    Quanjun Zhang, Chunrong Fang, Yang Xie, YuXiang Ma, Weisong Sun, Yun Yang, and Zhenyu Chen. 2024. A systematic literature review on large language models for automated program repair.ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology(2024)

    2024