Repository-level benchmarks for evaluating Large Language Model (LLM) code repair on Secure Multi-Party Computation (MPC) software do not yet exist, and directly transplanting general-purpose benchmarks such as SWE-bench fails on three structural fronts: (i) MPC repositories are dominated by generic Python infrastructure rather than cryptographic logic; (ii) high-value MPC fixes lack the standardized tests rigid extraction pipelines require; and (iii) standard fail-to-pass evaluation is insufficient for code that must also be cryptographically safe. MPC is increasingly deployed for privacy-preserving machine learning, biomedical collaboration, and secure analytics. Existing MPC-specific code-synthesis efforts cover only operator-level or single-framework tasks; evaluating LLM agents on real repository-level MPC repair instead demands MPC-aware data curation and a verifier matched to the security and numerical-fidelity guarantees MPC programs must obey neither of which existing benchmarks provide. We introduce MPC-Patch-Bench, a repository-level benchmark organised around two frameworks. (1)The Data Curation Framework combines a domain-specific curation agent that filters raw pull requests through three cryptographic layers with a human-AI completion engine that synthesizes missing problem statements and Fail-to-Pass/Pass-to-Pass tests, yielding 205 fully verified instances. (2)The MPC Verifier provides dedicated security and numerical-fidelity checks via dynamic differential testing against plaintext oracles and MPC-specific static analysis rules that flag unsafe reveals, insecure arithmetic, and illegal public/private casts. The strongest evaluated LLM functionally resolves only 22.9% of MPC-Patch-Bench tasks; the MPC Verifier further reduces verified resolution to 17.1%, with up to 40% of functionally-passing patches rejected for cryptographic or numerical-fidelity violations.
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 (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.
There are various benchmarks to evaluate bugfixing capabilities of Large Language Models. However, most widespread benchmarks do not fully reflect real-world bugfixing practices. They are small, weakening statistical reliability, and the buggy programs are often similar to one another, potentially distorting evaluation results. The range of bug types can also be narrow, failing to capture a representative range of bugs. To address these issues, we introduce MegaBugFix, a large-scale bugfixing benchmark containing 12,629 buggy Python programs synthesized from correct ones by a Large Language Model. Bug injections were generated as diffs representing code changes. Through this approach, we were able to avoid common pitfalls of LLM-based mutation techniques like injecting overly simplistic bugs or failing to modify the input program. We evaluated 13 open-weight models on MegaBugFix and baseline benchmarks, finding consistently lower performance on MegaBugFix. This reveals that our benchmark presents more challenging bugs and exposes model failures that may remain hidden when evaluating on existing benchmarks. The benchmark and fine-tuned model used for bug injection are available at hf.co/collections/szalontaib/megabugfix.