Large Language Models (LLMs) can generate plausible code patches, but plausibility is not enough for automated repair: a patch must compile, pass tests, and remove the target vulnerability. We present SynthFix, a neuro-symbolic repair framework that combines supervised repair learning with compiler-informed feedback. During training, a lightweight router selects between Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) for common repair patterns and Reward Fine-Tuning (RFT) for examples that benefit from symbolic feedback. The reward combines static structure, lint/compile checks, security scanning, and public execution tests where available; at inference time, the same evidence guides best-of-K candidate selection under a greedy floor. Across five code LLMs (1.3B-7B) on pyrepair, CodeFlaws, and SVEN, SynthFix improves deployable repair metrics over SFT-only and RFT-only baselines, with relative gains up to 54 percent in functional correctness and 14 percent in security clearance. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/CoderDoge1108/SynthFix.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to the automated repair of C/C++ security vulnerabilities, and compile rate is a commonly reported proxy for progress: whether the generated patch compiles. We argue that compile rate is a scientifically unreliable metric for single-function vulnerability repair, and we support this with five controlled experiments over 203 vulnerable functions from Big-Vul, three open-source code LLMs (350M to 6.7B parameters), and three prompting strategies. Compile rate (i) barely responds to an intervention that substantially improves the generated code; (ii) is dominated by evaluation-harness and dataset artifacts rather than model quality, with about 64% of compile failures not attributable to the model, a share that is nearly invariant across models; (iii) shifts by 1.8 to 2.7 times on identical patches under a single compiler-standard flag, with zero regressions; (iv) ranks the three models in the opposite order to reference-similarity metrics; and (v) rewards non-repairs when used as an optimization target, since a compiler-feedback loop raises compile rate while similarity to the human fix falls, with manual inspection finding deletion- and placeholder-style non-repairs among the newly compiling outputs. The natural fallback, whole-function CodeBLEU, also fails: an unchanged copy of the vulnerable input outscores every model. We also examine diff_F1, a change-aware screen that scores only the edited region. It gives exactly zero credit to a no-op and near-zero credit to some, though not all, of the deletion-based gaming patches we observed, while still crediting genuine partial edits, so it may serve as a cheap screen before deeper, execution-based analysis. It is not a repair-quality metric, and we report where it falls short. Our findings argue for change-aware, execution-grounded evaluation of LLM-based vulnerability repair.
Large language models can generate C code from natural-language descriptions, but resulting programs often contain security vulnerabilities and compilation errors, posing risks for embedded and resource-constrained systems. This work investigates how feedback and retrieval improve reliability of LLM-generated C code. We present an analysis-and-repair workflow that combines compilation diagnostics, CodeQL static analysis, and KLEE symbolic execution with retrieval of prior repair patterns for iterative refinement. Evaluated on 5,000 C programming tasks exercising embedded relevant vulnerabilities, baseline models show substantial reliability gaps, with compilation failure rates up to 46% and security defect rates up to 49%. Our approach improves both metrics. For CodeLlama 7B, security defect rates decrease from 49% to 19% and total CodeQL errors drop from 15,088 to 2,463 (83.7%). For DeepSeek Coder 1.3B, compilation failures are reduced from 42% to 22% and security defects from 35% to 15%. These results show that integrating lightweight analysis tools can improve the safety of LLM-generated code for embedded development.
Code repair is an important capability for language models (LMs): given a buggy program and unit tests, an LM must produce a fixed program that passes the tests. Because code repair data is limited, we aim to scale supervision by using an LM to generate bug--fix tasks. We propose generator--fixer self-play, in which a single model is trained with reinforcement learning to generate bugs and fix them. As the fixer improves, the generator adapts to produce more difficult bugs, yielding an automatic curriculum. To test whether this curriculum generalizes, we introduce BugSourceBench, a repair benchmark spanning realistic bug sources: bugs in human-written code, LM-generated code, and human-edited LM-generated code. On BugSourceBench, we find that self-play drifts toward difficult but unrealistic bugs, improving on synthetic bugs but degrading on human-authored ones. We propose Anchored Self-Play (ASP), which anchors self-play with a small reference set by adding a code-embedding similarity reward for generation and mixing reference bugs into fixer training. Across bug sources, ASP achieves the best fix rates, improving average fix rate over standard self-play by +24% relative / +7.0 pp absolute, with gains on bugs from both LMs and humans.