arXiv:2610.18755v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Reinforcement learning (RL) from unit tests is the common recipe for post-training code models, but a unit test only asks whether the final program p...
The paper investigates the problem of over‑editing by large language models when repairing code, showing that even state‑of‑the‑art models like GPT‑5.5 frequently rewrite more code than necessary. Using a benchmark of 400 BigCodeBench problems with controlled AST corruptions, the authors quantify excess edits and demonstrate that a simple preservation instruction can reduce unnecessary changes and improve pass rates. They further explore training strategies, finding that reinforcement learning yields the best balance between edit fidelity and performance retention, highlighting edit fidelity as a distinct, measurable dimension of code‑repair quality.
arXiv:2507. 22580v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Automated Program Repair (APR) seeks to automatically correct software bugs without requiring human intervention.
The paper investigates the problem of over‑editing by large language models (LLMs) when repairing code, showing that even state‑of‑the‑art models like GPT‑5.5 often rewrite more code than necessary. Using a benchmark of 400 BigCodeBench problems with controlled AST‑level corruptions, the authors quantify over‑editing and demonstrate that a simple preservation instruction can significantly reduce excess edits and cognitive complexity while improving Pass@1. They further explore post‑training strategies, finding that reinforcement learning yields the best balance between edit fidelity and performance retention, thereby establishing edit fidelity as a distinct, measurable dimension of code‑repair quality.
BoostAPR is a three-stage framework that improves automated program repair by using execution-grounded reinforcement learning with dual reward models. The approach first fine‑tunes a model on execution‑verified demonstrations, then trains a sequence‑level assessor and a line‑level credit allocator from execution outcomes, and finally applies PPO optimization where the line‑level model redistributes rewards to critical edit regions. Evaluated on SWE‑Gym and four benchmarks, BoostAPR achieves significant gains, including 40.7% on SWE‑bench Verified and 95.0% on QuixBugs, demonstrating strong cross‑language generalization.
arXiv:2610.15894v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language model (LLM) code-repair systems fix faulty programs by repeatedly generating and testing revisions. Each revision is costly, making th...
The paper introduces RobustTests, a framework that improves reinforcement learning for code generation by synthesizing test cases from faulty code and refining rewards with a dense, stepwise function. It uses validator agents and behavioral clustering to filter out invalid or redundant tests, and incorporates pass‑rate‑based rewards to counter hallucination noise. Experiments on CodeContests and LiveCodeBench show that fine‑tuning Qwen3‑32B with RobustTests yields a 3% absolute performance gain over baseline methods.
SWE-Critix is a post‑training pipeline that creates generalist verifiers for coding‑agent trajectories. It uses supervised fine‑tuning followed by reinforcement learning to train 30B models on CodeForge‑Preview data, enabling the verifier to predict completion labels and generate natural‑language explanations. The approach raises classification accuracy from 57% to 78% on a held‑out test set.
arXiv:2607. 27271v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Code models are increasingly trained with execution feedback, but most training signals still stop at correctness.
arXiv:2609.09133v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Execution feedback can guide coding agents toward correct repository repairs, but only when the tests capture the behavior requested by the issue. Agen...
arXiv:2605. 02909v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has become a powerful approach for improving the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs).
The paper investigates how Large Language Models (LLMs) handle bug fixing compared to human-written patches by analyzing about 3,000 Codeforces submissions. It finds that LLMs often modify more lines than necessary and sometimes produce entirely new solutions, and that they solve more problems correctly when generating solutions from scratch rather than patching existing code. The study highlights implications for AI‑assisted programming tools, suggesting a shift toward incremental problem‑solving strategies.