Automated Program Repair: Emerging trends pose and expose problems for benchmarks
2405.05455
0
0
š
Abstract
Machine learning (ML) now pervades the field of Automated Program Repair (APR). Algorithms deploy neural machine translation and large language models (LLMs) to generate software patches, among other tasks. But, there are important differences between these applications of ML and earlier work. Evaluations and comparisons must take care to ensure that results are valid and likely to generalize. A challenge is that the most popular APR evaluation benchmarks were not designed with ML techniques in mind. This is especially true for LLMs, whose large and often poorly-disclosed training datasets may include problems on which they are evaluated.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- This paper examines emerging trends in automated program repair and how they pose challenges for existing benchmarks.
- It discusses how advancements in machine learning, particularly the use of large language models, are changing the landscape of program repair.
- The paper highlights issues with current benchmarks and the need to evolve them to keep pace with these new approaches.
Plain English Explanation
Automated program repair is the process of automatically fixing bugs or errors in computer programs. Traditionally, this has been done using rule-based or search-based techniques. However, the rise of machine learning, especially the use of large language models, is transforming the field.
These new machine learning-based approaches to program repair are changing the game. They can tackle a wider range of problems and generate more human-like fixes compared to the traditional techniques. However, the current benchmarks used to evaluate program repair systems may not be well-suited to these emerging approaches.
The paper argues that the benchmarks need to evolve to keep up with the changing landscape of program repair. The types of bugs, the quality of the fixes, and the overall objectives of the repair process are all shifting, and the benchmarks need to adapt accordingly. Otherwise, they may not accurately reflect the capabilities of the latest program repair techniques.
By highlighting these issues, the paper aims to spur the development of more robust and comprehensive benchmarks that can effectively evaluate the performance of both traditional and machine learning-based program repair systems. This is crucial for driving the field forward and ensuring that the latest advancements in program repair can be properly assessed and leveraged.
Technical Explanation
The paper begins by discussing the emergence of new trends in automated program repair, particularly the increasing use of machine learning and large language models. These approaches have the potential to handle a broader range of bugs and generate more human-like fixes compared to traditional rule-based or search-based techniques.
However, the authors argue that these advancements pose challenges for the existing benchmarks used to evaluate program repair systems. The paper identifies several issues with current benchmarks:
- Bug diversity: The types of bugs in benchmark datasets may not reflect the full range of issues encountered in real-world software.
- Patch quality: Existing benchmarks primarily focus on whether a fix is functionally correct, but they may not adequately assess the quality, maintainability, or human-likeness of the generated patches.
- Repair objectives: Traditional benchmarks often prioritize finding any valid fix, but newer approaches may have different objectives, such as generating the most human-like or efficient repairs.
To address these challenges, the authors suggest the need for more diverse and comprehensive benchmarks that can evaluate the performance of both traditional and machine learning-based program repair techniques. They discuss the potential for using real-world software issues, crowdsourcing, and other innovative approaches to create more representative and challenging benchmark datasets.
The paper also highlights the importance of developing new evaluation metrics that go beyond binary correctness and capture the nuances of patch quality, maintainability, and alignment with developer preferences.
Critical Analysis
The paper raises valid concerns about the ability of current program repair benchmarks to keep pace with the evolving landscape of the field. As the authors point out, the increasing use of machine learning and large language models is introducing new approaches and changing the objectives of program repair.
However, the paper could have delved deeper into the specific challenges and limitations of existing benchmarks. For example, it could have provided more examples of how the types of bugs or the desired repair characteristics differ between traditional and machine learning-based techniques.
Additionally, the paper could have explored potential solutions in more detail, such as specific ideas for creating more diverse benchmark datasets or developing new evaluation metrics. While the authors suggest the need for such improvements, they could have provided more concrete recommendations or frameworks for how the community might go about addressing these issues.
Nevertheless, the central argument of the paper is sound ā the program repair community needs to evolve its benchmarking practices to keep up with the rapid advancements in the field. By addressing these challenges, researchers and practitioners will be better equipped to accurately assess the capabilities of various program repair approaches and drive the field forward.
Conclusion
This paper highlights the emerging trends in automated program repair, particularly the growing influence of machine learning and large language models. It argues that these advancements pose significant challenges for the existing benchmarks used to evaluate program repair systems.
The paper identifies key issues with current benchmarks, such as their limited bug diversity, narrow focus on functional correctness, and misalignment with the objectives of newer program repair techniques. To address these challenges, the authors call for the development of more comprehensive and representative benchmarks that can effectively evaluate the performance of both traditional and machine learning-based program repair systems.
By addressing these benchmark limitations, the program repair community can ensure that the latest advancements in the field are properly assessed and leveraged. This is crucial for driving continued progress and ensuring that automated program repair systems can effectively tackle the diverse range of software issues encountered in the real world.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
Benchmarking Educational Program Repair
Charles Koutcheme, Nicola Dainese, Sami Sarsa, Juho Leinonen, Arto Hellas, Paul Denny
0
0
The emergence of large language models (LLMs) has sparked enormous interest due to their potential application across a range of educational tasks. For example, recent work in programming education has used LLMs to generate learning resources, improve error messages, and provide feedback on code. However, one factor that limits progress within the field is that much of the research uses bespoke datasets and different evaluation metrics, making direct comparisons between results unreliable. Thus, there is a pressing need for standardization and benchmarks that facilitate the equitable comparison of competing approaches. One task where LLMs show great promise is program repair, which can be used to provide debugging support and next-step hints to students. In this article, we propose a novel educational program repair benchmark. We curate two high-quality publicly available programming datasets, present a unified evaluation procedure introducing a novel evaluation metric rouge@k for approximating the quality of repairs, and evaluate a set of five recent models to establish baseline performance.
5/10/2024
RepairLLaMA: Efficient Representations and Fine-Tuned Adapters for Program Repair
Andr'e Silva, Sen Fang, Martin Monperrus
0
0
Automated Program Repair (APR) has evolved significantly with the advent of Large Language Models (LLMs). Fine-tuning LLMs for program repair is a recent avenue of research, with many dimensions which have not been explored. Existing work mostly fine-tune LLMs with naive code representations and does not scale to frontier models. To address this problem, we propose RepairLLaMA, a novel program repair approach that 1) identifies optimal code representations for APR with fine-tuned models, and 2) pioneers state-of-the-art parameter-efficient fine-tuning technique (PEFT) for program repair. This results in RepairLLaMA producing a highly effective `program repair adapter' for fixing bugs with AI. Our experiments demonstrate the validity of both concepts. First, fine-tuning adapters with program repair specific code representations enables the model to use meaningful repair signals and produce better patches. Second, parameter-efficient fine-tuning helps fine-tuning to converge and clearly contributes to the effectiveness of RepairLLaMA in fixing bugs outside the fine-tuning data distribution. Overall, RepairLLaMA correctly fixes 144 Defects4J v2 and 109 HumanEval-Java bugs, outperforming all baselines.
6/10/2024
š§
How Effective Are Neural Networks for Fixing Security Vulnerabilities
Yi Wu, Nan Jiang, Hung Viet Pham, Thibaud Lutellier, Jordan Davis, Lin Tan, Petr Babkin, Sameena Shah
0
0
Security vulnerability repair is a difficult task that is in dire need of automation. Two groups of techniques have shown promise: (1) large code language models (LLMs) that have been pre-trained on source code for tasks such as code completion, and (2) automated program repair (APR) techniques that use deep learning (DL) models to automatically fix software bugs. This paper is the first to study and compare Java vulnerability repair capabilities of LLMs and DL-based APR models. The contributions include that we (1) apply and evaluate five LLMs (Codex, CodeGen, CodeT5, PLBART and InCoder), four fine-tuned LLMs, and four DL-based APR techniques on two real-world Java vulnerability benchmarks (Vul4J and VJBench), (2) design code transformations to address the training and test data overlapping threat to Codex, (3) create a new Java vulnerability repair benchmark VJBench, and its transformed version VJBench-trans and (4) evaluate LLMs and APR techniques on the transformed vulnerabilities in VJBench-trans. Our findings include that (1) existing LLMs and APR models fix very few Java vulnerabilities. Codex fixes 10.2 (20.4%), the most number of vulnerabilities. (2) Fine-tuning with general APR data improves LLMs' vulnerability-fixing capabilities. (3) Our new VJBench reveals that LLMs and APR models fail to fix many Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) types, such as CWE-325 Missing cryptographic step and CWE-444 HTTP request smuggling. (4) Codex still fixes 8.3 transformed vulnerabilities, outperforming all the other LLMs and APR models on transformed vulnerabilities. The results call for innovations to enhance automated Java vulnerability repair such as creating larger vulnerability repair training data, tuning LLMs with such data, and applying code simplification transformation to facilitate vulnerability repair.
4/3/2024
Aligning LLMs for FL-free Program Repair
Junjielong Xu, Ying Fu, Shin Hwei Tan, Pinjia He
0
0
Large language models (LLMs) have achieved decent results on automated program repair (APR). However, the next token prediction training objective of decoder-only LLMs (e.g., GPT-4) is misaligned with the masked span prediction objective of current infilling-style methods, which impedes LLMs from fully leveraging pre-trained knowledge for program repair. In addition, while some LLMs are capable of locating and repairing bugs end-to-end when using the related artifacts (e.g., test cases) as input, existing methods regard them as separate tasks and ask LLMs to generate patches at fixed locations. This restriction hinders LLMs from exploring potential patches beyond the given locations. In this paper, we investigate a new approach to adapt LLMs to program repair. Our core insight is that LLM's APR capability can be greatly improved by simply aligning the output to their training objective and allowing them to refine the whole program without first performing fault localization. Based on this insight, we designed D4C, a straightforward prompting framework for APR. D4C can repair 180 bugs correctly in Defects4J, with each patch being sampled only 10 times. This surpasses the SOTA APR methods with perfect fault localization by 10% and reduces the patch sampling number by 90%. Our findings reveal that (1) objective alignment is crucial for fully exploiting LLM's pre-trained capability, and (2) replacing the traditional localize-then-repair workflow with direct debugging is more effective for LLM-based APR methods. Thus, we believe this paper introduces a new mindset for harnessing LLMs in APR.
4/16/2024