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
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: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:2610.27784v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Vulnerability benchmarks and software engineering research depend on rebuilding historical software. Yet builds rely on external resources, such as b...
By Olivier Nourry, Yoshiki Higo
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
arXiv:2601.19066v3 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Bug Reproduction Tests (BRTs) have been used in many Automated Program Repair (APR) systems, primarily for validating fixes and aiding fix ge...
By Runxiang Cheng, Michele Tufano, Jos\'e Cambronero, Renyao Wei, Sherry Shi, Grant Uy, Pat Rondon, Franjo Ivan\v{c}i\'c