arXiv:2607. 25873v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Model (LLM)-based Automated Program Repair systems are advancing rapidly, yet their performance remains inconsistent.
arXiv:2608. 14065v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Background: Software bugs remain a critical challenge in development, necessitating effective Automated Program Repair (APR) techniques.
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.
arXiv:2507. 22580v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Automated Program Repair (APR) seeks to automatically correct software bugs without requiring human intervention.
arXiv:2505. 07372v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: This paper presents a novel methodology for enhancing Automated Program Repair (APR) through synthetic data generation utilizing Large Language Models (LLMs).
arXiv:2608. 04682v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Coding agents powered by large language models (LLMs) are increasingly adopted in software engineering (SWE) scenarios, capable of fixing a specific bug in large-scale codebase.
arXiv:2607. 12605v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have improved automated program repair (APR), but two limitations remain.
arXiv:2605. 17965v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Bug localization remains a key bottleneck for large language model (LLM)-based software maintenance, where accurately identifying faulty code is essential for debugging, root cause analysis, triage, and automated program repair (APR).
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.
arXiv:2607. 04537v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Code language models are now trusted collaborators in production workflows for debugging, refactoring, and iterative repair, and every benchmark that evaluates them assumes the instructions they act on are correct.
Code language models are now trusted collaborators in production workflows for debugging, refactoring, and iterative repair, and every benchmark that evaluates them assumes the instructions they act on are correct. We study what happens when that assumption breaks.
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.
arXiv:2607. 28871v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: When a repair agent runs a test and sees it pass, the result is treated as evidence about the reported defect.