arXiv:2607. 00990v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language model (LLM)-based software engineering agents are increasingly developed to resolve software issues by generating patches from issue reports and code repositories.
By Yaoqi Guo, Yang Liu, Jie M. Zhang, Yun Ma, Yiling Lou, Zhenpeng Chen
arXiv:2607. 19843v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have made automated program repair (APR) increasingly practical for real-world bugs, but repairing directly from bug reports remains underconstrained.
By Yuhao Tan, Zhibang Yang, Fangkai Yang, Yuan Yao, Yu Kang, Lu Wang, Pu Zhao, Xin Zhang, Xiaoxing Ma, Qingwei Lin, Saravan Rajmohan, Dongmei Zhang
The paper presents a systematic analysis of five state‑of‑the‑art automated program repair agents, tracing their decision‑making across 500 real‑world repair tasks. It finds that while the agents perform well on simple fixes, they struggle with logic‑intensive bugs, often producing verbose, overfitted patches that pass tests without addressing root causes. Key bottlenecks identified include poor test generation, limited regression test selection, and reliance on primitive tooling without access to debuggers or advanced program analysis tools.
By Ira Ceka, Hailie Mitchell, Saurabh Pujar, Luca Buratti, Shyam Ramji, Junfeng Yang, Gail Kaiser, Baishakhi Ray
PatchBench introduces a benchmark to evaluate AI agents on realistic vulnerability patching tasks, addressing two key threats to validity: patch memorization and surface-level fixes that merely suppress crashes. The study finds that 25% of agent patches resemble historical developer patches, and that PoC-only validation inflates success rates by 1.83× on average. PatchBench mitigates these issues by selecting vulnerabilities whose true fixes lie outside the crash stack, migrating historical vulnerabilities into new contexts, and employing rigorous validation for security and semantic correctness.
By Chihao Shen, Jiacheng Li, Aastha Mahajan, Jeffery Siyuan Tian, Yonghwi Kwon, Yizheng Chen
arXiv:2609.37864v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Agent harness bugs exhibit unique characteristics and remain challenging for state-of-the-art software agents to repair. Progress in this area is fur...
By Yiming Cheng (The University of Chicago), Alfin Wijaya Rahardja (Fudan University), Mengshi Zhang (TensorBlock, Inc), Zihao Chen (TensorBlock, Inc), Zhenpeng Chen (Tsinghua University), Yiling Lou (University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign)
The paper introduces FlowAgent, an AI agent deployed at Google to automatically repair test failures in the pre-submit continuous integration workflow. FlowAgent uses a ReAct-style generate-and-validate loop with strict latency and quality filters, and was evaluated on 195 real-world failures with a 67.18% accuracy rate. After deployment, it suggested fixes on 295,508 changes, with developers previewing 65,069 and applying 28,554, and received positive feedback from interviews.
By Celal Ziftci, Spencer Greene, Ray Liu, Livio Dalloro, Lorenzo Dini
arXiv:2607. 12605v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have improved automated program repair (APR), but two limitations remain.
By Zhili Huang, Ling Xu, Hongyu Zhang
arXiv:2605. 17450v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: As software systems grow increasingly complex, automated vulnerability repair (AVR) remains difficult because the materials available to a repair system are usually failure artifacts rather than repair guidance.
By Simiao Liu, Fang Liu, Peiding Wang, Taichuan Li, Yinghao Zhu, Xiaoli Lian, Li Zhang
arXiv:2604. 11950v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: While recent LLM-based agents can identify many candidate bugs in source code, their reports remain static hypotheses that require manual validation, limiting the practicality of automated bug detection.
By Zijie Zhao, Chenyuan Yang, Weidong Wang, Yihan Yang, Ziqi Zhang, Lingming Zhang
The paper investigates hallucination in large language model–based automated program repair (APR). It defines hallucination as producing patches or intermediate artifacts that are not grounded in available repair evidence, and analyzes it across final patches and intermediate tasks such as triggering test case identification, line coverage prediction, and additional test case generation. Experiments on 832 Defects4J bugs show that only 21.0%–55.9% of patches pass the developer test suite, with 72.7% of sampled repairs exhibiting hallucinations, often due to incorrect causal localization or repair strategies.
By Xuemeng Cai, Jiakun Liu, Linhan Yang, Wei Ma, Lingxiao Jiang
HAFixAgent is a history-aware program repair agent that incorporates blame-derived repository context into its repair loop. In a large-scale study on 854 Defects4J and 501 BugsInPy bugs, the agent’s best history heuristic improved repair rates by up to +64.3% with weaker models and outperformed existing agents by significant margins. The three complementary history heuristics together repair more bugs than any single heuristic, with only modest increases in agent steps or tokens.
By Yu Shi, Hao Li, Bram Adams, Ahmed E. Hassan
arXiv:2607. 29422v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Automated vulnerability repair aims to reduce the time and effort required to patch security flaws from a vulnerability triage report.
By Michael Fu, Qiyue Mei, Patanamon Thongtanunam, Kla Tantithamthavorn