RePair: Automated Program Repair with Process-based Feedback (2024.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Commercial-scale language models (LMs) have taken APR to unprecedented levels, but they are limited by parameters and humans interact with them through explicit prompts. |
| Approach: | They propose a method that utilizes process supervision to improve program repair by allowing users to input feedback from compilers and test cases. |
| Outcome: | The proposed method outperforms large outcome-based generation methods and is inspired by strategies used in programming competitions. |
Similar Papers
Towards Low-Resource Automatic Program Repair with Meta-Learning and Pretrained Language Models (2023.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Recent advances in deep learning (DL) based APR models have demonstrated promising results by learning from large-scale bug-fix examples in a data-driven manner. |
| Approach: | They propose a meta-learning framework integrated with code pretrained language models to generate fixes for low-resource bugs with limited training samples. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework learns better error-specific knowledge from high-resource bugs through efficient first-order meta-learning optimization, which allows for a faster adaptation to the target low-resourced bugs. |
Grammar-Based Patches Generation for Automated Program Repair (2021.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Automated program repair (APR) aims to find an automatic solution to program language bugs without human intervention. |
| Approach: | They propose a grammar-based rule-rule model which regards the repair process as the transformation of grammar rules and employs a tree-based self-attention approach to guarantee grammar correctness. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model outperforms the state-of-the-art models on a Java dataset in terms of generated code accuracy. |
Learning to repair: Repairing model output errors after deployment using a dynamic memory of feedback (2022.findings-naacl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Our approach pairs an LM with a growing memory of cases where the user identified an output error and provided general feedback on how to correct it. |
| Approach: | They propose to use an existing script generator to train a model to repair output errors without retraining. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model learns to apply user feedback to repair output errors while avoiding similar past mistakes on new, unseen examples. |
SynthFix: Adaptive Neuro-Symbolic Code Vulnerability Repair (2026.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large Language Models (LLMs) struggle with complex semantic and structural correctness required for automated code repair. |
| Approach: | They propose a hybrid neural-symbolic framework that unifies code synthesis with compiler-informed symbolic feedback to improve LLM-based vulnerability repair. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework improves code repair accuracy and efficiency over strong SFT and RFT training strategies on the FixJS and CodeFlaws benchmarks. |
INTERVENOR: Prompting the Coding Ability of Large Language Models with the Interactive Chain of Repair (2024.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Experimental results show that INTERVENOR surpasses baseline models, exhibiting improvements of approximately 18% and 4.3% over GPT-3.5 in code generation and code translation tasks. |
| Approach: | They propose a system that prompts Large Language Models to play distinct roles during the code repair process, functioning as both a Code Learner and a code teacher. |
| Outcome: | The proposed system surpasses baseline models in code generation and code translation tasks and improves on syntax errors and assertion errors. |
Code Reffix: A Benchmark for Reflection-Guided Code Repair with Large Language Models (2026.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing benchmarks focus on the repair generation capability of LLMs, lacking fine-grained evaluation of reflection. |
| Approach: | They propose a benchmark with oracle reflections and a dual-task protocol to decouple evaluation of reflection from repair. |
| Outcome: | The proposed benchmarks show that underperforming reflection capabilities remain a bottleneck for code repair. |
CURE: Critique-Driven Unified Reinforcement Learning for Test-Time Self-Improvement (2026.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing critique-guided methods fail to equip models with the autonomous improvement capabilities required for test-time scaling. |
| Approach: | They propose a framework that jointly optimizes a single policy for standard solving, critiquing, and guided re-exploration. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework maintains competitive single-turn performance and unlocks effective inference-time scaling. |
Check Your Work: Structured Checklist Feedback for Improving Large Language Models (2026.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Recent advances in Large Language Models have been driven by verifiable feedback in deterministic domains like mathematics and code. |
| Approach: | They propose to decompose granular, prompt-specific checklists into a scalar reward and use them to transform them into skalar rewards. |
| Outcome: | The proposed approach yields an 11.8% win-rate improvement on AlpacaEval 2.0 using Qwen3-8B, outperforming holistic reward models and existing checklist baselines. |
QiMeng-PRepair: Precise Code Repair via Edit-Aware Reward Optimization (2026.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
Changxin Ke, Rui Zhang, Jiaming Guo, Yuanbo Wen, Li Ding, Shuo Wang, Xuyuan Zhu, Xiong Peng, Di Huang, Zidong Du, Xing Hu, Qi Guo, Yunji Chen
| Challenge: | Existing approaches to program repair are based on correctness alone. |
| Approach: | They propose a framework that mitigates over-editing and improves repair accuracy by generating buggy programs and re-edits. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework improves repair precision by 31.4% under fix1@1, a metric that considers repair correctness and extent, and significantly increases decoding throughput when combined with speculative editing. |
CascadeFix: Multi-Location Program Repair via Cascading Planning and Generation (2026.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing methods for automating program repair face insufficient bug dependency modeling and inadequate global repair planning when addressing semantically complex multi-location bugs. |
| Approach: | They propose a multi-location automatic repair method via cascading planning and generation . they propose to model dependencies among bugs and cluster them to ensure rationality . |
| Outcome: | The proposed method resolves 84 multi-location bugs, achieving a 31% improvement over current methods. |