Automated Program Repair

Dependency conflicts in Python ecosystems arise from incompatible version constraints, missing packages, and undocumented compatibility relationships, causing many real-world code snippets to fail at execution. This paper presents PLLM+, a hybrid dependency-repair pipeline evaluated on the HG2.9K benchmark of 2,891 dependency-failing snippets. PLLM+ prioritizes inexpensive deterministic steps before invoking LLM-based repair: static AST-based interpreter inference, replay of historically successful dependency configurations from the competition-provided solutions database, and live PyPI validation of candidate package versions. When these steps do not resolve a case, the system falls back to a structured LLM-based repair loop with typed error classification and Proposer/Critic agents. On HG2.9K, PLLM+ solves 1,500 out of 2,891 snippets, compared with 1,169 solved by the PLLM baseline. It also reduces average runtime from 368.7 to 71.8 seconds per snippet. Most successful fixes come from replaying known configurations: 1,495 of the 1,500 successful fixes are produced by the solutions database, while the LLM fallback accounts for 5 additional fixes. These results suggest that, in this benchmark setting, deterministic reuse of previously validated dependency configurations is a simple and effective strategy, with LLM-based repair serving as a secondary fallback for cases not covered by prior solutions.

Recent memory-augmented repository-level program repair methods reuse historical repair experiences to improve LLM-based issue resolution. However, our analysis reveals three limitations in existing repository-level memory retrieval. First, episodic memory is highly imbalanced across repositories, leaving low-resource repositories with little effective support. Second, more memory does not monotonically lead to higher repair success, suggesting that relevance, quality, and redundancy matter more than raw memory volume. Third, memory accumulation is phase-misaligned: repositories may contain many reproduction experiences but few patch or refinement experiences. To address these problems, we propose an adaptive experience retrieval framework for repository-level program repair. Our framework introduces coverage-aware retrieval, which falls back to cross-repository or repair-type-based memories when same-repository memory is insufficient; quality-aware selection, which ranks memories by relevance, historical utility, specificity, and redundancy; and stage-aware routing, which separates and retrieves memories for reproduction, localization, patch generation, patch refinement, and validation. Evaluated on SWE-Bench-Lite and SWE-Bench-Verified, the proposed framework improves repair performance on under-covered repositories, reduces noisy memory retrieval, and better supports failed-to-fixed patch refinement. Our results show that the key to memory-augmented repair is not simply accumulating more experiences, but retrieving the right experiences for the right repair context.

Repository-level repair requires not only correct patches but also inspectable records that explain how issue requirements are translated into code changes and post-edit evidence. We contribute THEMIS, a stage-aware repair workflow that externalizes this requirement-to-repair process through semantic interpretation, a runtime requirement-code graph, graph-derived Developer guidance, retained repair rationale and patches, and post-edit audit records. A retrospective audit of 300 SWE-bench Lite cases demonstrates that these artifacts provide broad support for cross-stage inspection: a complete Developer rationale is available for 288 cases, and 214 cases (71.3%) retain a complete audited field set connecting the selected stages. The retained records further enable systematic measurement of cross-stage correspondence: target symbols recur in 62.6% of Developer rationales and in 62.8% of patches, rising to 75.8% when related symbols are included. In a paired 100-case comparison, the relational workflow resolves 19 cases versus 9 for the direct same-input condition; because the two conditions also differ in Analyzer output, graph-derived distillation, and Judge records, we report this as preliminary, workflow-level evidence rather than a causal effect of the graph component. Together, these results show that THEMIS makes otherwise implicit requirement-to-repair transitions inspectable, enabling systematic examination of how repair decisions persist, align, and evolve across stages.

Large language models (LLMs) have significantly advanced automated program repair (APR), yet existing evaluations remain largely result-centric and provide limited insight into hallucination during repair. In APR, hallucination may arise not only in final patches but also in the intermediate artifacts that guide patch generation. To address this gap, we perform a multi-layered analysis of hallucination throughout the APR process. Specifically, we characterize hallucination as the production of patches or intermediate artifacts that are not faithfully grounded in the available repair evidence. We examine repair hallucination in final patches and understanding hallucination in intermediate artifacts through three tasks, namely triggering testcase identification, line coverage prediction, and additional testcase generation. We then evaluate three representative LLMs on 832 Defects4J bugs through automatic evaluation and manual analysis. Our results show that both repair and understanding hallucinations remain prevalent. Across models and settings, only 21.0%-55.9% of generated patches pass the developer-written test suite. Moreover, although more accurate intermediate artifacts are generally associated with successful repairs, this relationship does not always hold. Manual analysis of 812 sampled repairs identifies repair hallucinations in 72.7% of cases, including patches that pass all available tests; incorrect causal localization and incorrect repair strategies account for 45.9% and 18.5% of these hallucinations, respectively. Meanwhile, models frequently misidentify triggering testcases, mispredict line coverage involving branching control flow, and generate additional testcases with missing bug-triggering conditions or incorrect expected behavior.

Agent harnesses combine retrieval, routing, state, provenance, and verification, but locally successful components may disagree on shared state. We model this failure with a finite \emph{capability sheaf}: stalks encode typed behavior signatures, restriction maps retain shared fields, and accepted runs are useful global sections. An exact finite constraint-satisfaction problem (CSP) defines acceptance, while a linearized relative cohomology class provides a diagnostic and search feature. A controlled experiment over 20 task clusters introduces hidden interior mediators whose raw states are nuisance variables. Quotienting their coboundaries reduces the candidate budget from 2,000 to 1,000 per cluster; aligning the hidden state removes the gap. Exact CSP matches the quotient, so the result demonstrates invariance to stale representatives, not superiority over exact reasoning. We then test the method on a discovery split from the SWE-bench Multilingual pool of PatchFuseBench: 160 issues from 20 repositories, 875 real candidate patches, 2,579 source-aware edit atoms, and 153 newly executed patches. A first pool-level construction is constant because $[b-Dx]=[b]$ in $\operatorname{coker}D$ and therefore cannot rank configurations. A candidate-indexed repair is nontrivial on 848/875 candidates and varies within 120/160 issues. It resolves 118 issues versus 116 for a matched noncohomological selector, but the difference is not supported across repositories (exact sign-flip $p=0.75$). A leave-one-repository-out abstention gate reaches 127/160, tying the strong anchor and exceeding its matched gate by one issue ($p=1.0$). The discovery gate therefore fails and the confirmatory split remains sealed. The study supports the controlled invariance mechanism and an identifiability correction, but not a real-world cohomological advantage.

Fixing GitHub issues in large-scale projects is a long-horizon task, especially when a fix requires changes across multiple locations or the issue description lacks the information needed to localize and repair it. As a result, agents traverse long trajectories that are prone to inefficiency and error: they drift away from their intended plan, repeat failed actions, or terminate without a working patch. This paper proposes LivePlan to monitor, detect, and correct such behavioral inefficiencies and drifts in real time. LivePlan decouples judging from advising: a deterministic, rule-based monitor examines general signals over the trajectory to detect issues without invoking an LLM, and only when an issue is detected does it consult an advisor LLM for a high-level, next-step correction. This design avoids the misleading re-planning and costly interventions of prior approaches. We implement LivePlan on top of SWE-agent and evaluate it using five LLMs (three as executor agents and two as advisors) across SWE-bench Verified and SWE-bench Pro. Compared to vanilla SWE-agent, LivePlan notably improves issue resolution rates, achieving consistent gains of up to 15.2% (average: 9.9%), while incurring only an additional cost of $0.08 per instance. The additional solutions concentrate on medium and hard instances. LivePlan consistently outperforms alternative approaches in resolution rate, with minimal regression on already successful runs and new successes on problems that no baseline solves.

Automated vulnerability repair aims to reduce the time and effort required to patch security flaws from a vulnerability triage report. Recent agentic AI approaches have shown promising results in automated program repair. However, vulnerability repair demands richer program context than general bug repair - context that security engineers routinely assemble in practice but that existing agentic approaches do not engineer. We identify three critical gaps: code-structure context capturing cross-file data flows and memory operation patterns, runtime-execution context revealing crash semantics and memory origins, and commit-history context recovering how fragile code patterns were introduced. We present AgenticRepair, an agentic vulnerability repair framework that addresses the gaps through multi-faceted program context engineering. AgenticRepair orchestrates three specialized LLM subagents to engineer the contexts, which are then embedded into the memory of a dedicated repair subagent for context-conditioned patch synthesis. Evaluated on SEC-Bench comprising 300 real-world instances with sanitizer-based patch verification, AgenticRepair achieves a 73% success rate, substantially outperforming the strongest baseline by 29%. Our ablation study confirms that the three context facets are mutually complementary, and that multi-agent scaffolding and base-model capacity each play an essential role. Collectively, these findings establish multi-faceted program context engineering as a promising design direction for agentic vulnerability repair.

When a repair agent runs a test and sees it pass, the result is treated as evidence about the reported defect. We measure how often that treatment is warranted. BSG-VA (buggy-state/candidate-state/gold-fix validation analysis) captures each validation command at its exact working-tree state, extracts a test-only patch, and replays the command on the original buggy code (B), the candidate state (S), and the developer gold fix (G). The captured outcome and the replay results assign every event an evidence role, from gold-aligned bug-discriminating through regression-only to misleading. Across 3,730 events in 643 rollouts on 110 tasks, 46.0% of positive comparable events carry no bug-discriminating information; 23.8% of baseline rollouts, with no feedback injected, close with a patch whose entire positive evidence base is of this kind. A three-arm experiment tests whether returning the B-replay outcome to the agent changes this pattern. Bug-contrast feedback reduces evidence-inadequate closure by 7.8 percentage points relative to an attention-matched reminder (p = 0.0029) and raises bug-discriminating evidence by 7.4 points (p = 0.011), with no detectable cost to repair success. Both estimates fall below the prespecified 10-percentage-point smallest effect size of interest, so practical magnitude remains uncertain. Roughly a third of the improvement traces to the reminder alone; across two exploratory replications, varying the scaffold and the model, the B-replay content adds a detectable increment only with gpt-5.6-sol under the unconstrained tool-use loop. BSG-VA applies post hoc to any replayable repair trajectory that preserves the required code states and execution environment. Keywords: program repair agents, validation evidence, test adequacy, large language models, software quality, controlled experiment.

Large Language Model (LLM)-based Automated Program Repair systems are advancing rapidly, yet their performance remains inconsistent. Even when provided with the same contextual information, an LLM may generate a correct patch for one bug but fail on another closely related bug. Why this happens remains poorly understood, and it is unclear how LLMs prioritize the diverse information in bug reports and whether model attention affects repair success. In this paper, we present the first empirical study of attention patterns in LLM-based program repair, providing interpretable insights into how models process bug reports and where their attention is concentrated during repair. We analyze 319 real-world Python and Java bugs from SWE-bench Verified and Multi-SWE-bench to study (RQ1) how model attention is distributed across bug report sections, (RQ2) how attention patterns within each section differ between successful and unsuccessful repairs, and (RQ3) how these patterns compare to information developers consider important for bug fixing. We find that successful repairs are characterized by diffused attention across multiple diagnostic components such as bug descriptions, stacktraces, and test cases, while failures often exhibit over-localized attention toward metadata such as version information. We further observe that stronger alignment between model attention and developer-identified key sections and phrases is associated with higher repair success. Our results provide the first empirical evidence that attention misallocation is a key factor in LLM-based APR failures, and offer actionable insights for designing more interpretable and reliable future APR systems.

Generate--test--revise loops are common in coding agents, but repetition alone provides no reliability guarantee. We study the gap between finding a correct patch and retaining, verifying, and submitting it. A sealed five-seed study over 30 HumanEval repairs produces 900 three-revision trajectories. Under forced revision, current correctness with current traces falls from 0.820 after one revision to 0.673 after two, although ever-correct rises to 0.847. Two common-state studies use 2,430 branches from identical frozen programs to remove post-treatment risk-set bias. In a prespecified 14B replication, stale traces harm 34/135 correct starts versus 4/135 with current traces, a 22.2-point increase (task-cluster 95% CI $[8.9,37.0]$, exact Holm $p=0.0337$). A prospective 540-rollout policy eliminates observed correct-start harm but reduces wrong-start repair and fails its joint criterion. Repository experiments over 24 bugs and four coder stacks expose floor effects and component heterogeneity without Holm-significant effects. We therefore separate admission, preservation, grounded certification, competence, and liveness. We derive an evidence-bound typed loop contract and instantiate its mechanically enforceable subset in a reference implementation that binds verifier evidence to exact code states, preserves verified checkpoints, and emits auditable admission receipts. The implementation is an executable specification and conformance artifact, not evidence of improved repair competence or calibrated verifier dependence.

Large language models (LLMs) have made automated program repair (APR) increasingly practical for real-world bugs, but repairing directly from bug reports remains underconstrained. Bug reproduction tests (BRTs) help close this gap by turning a bug report into an executable, bug-specific signal that can guide repair and validate candidate patches. Existing work has therefore studied BRT generation as a core subproblem in APR and mainly evaluates a generated BRT using the fail-to-pass (F->P) criterion, which requires the test to fail on the buggy code but pass on the golden fix. We show that F->P alone is insufficient when the goal of a BRT is to improve downstream repair. In particular, some F->P BRTs are lax, reproducing the observed symptom yet still admitting plausible-but-incorrect patches. We formalize this missing quality dimension by separating F->P BRTs into rigorous and lax ones, and show empirically that only the former consistently improve repair success. We further find that co-generation introduces test--fix error coupling, where the in-trajectory fail-to-pass (F->P) check can pass even when both the generated patch and generated test are wrong. Based on these findings, we propose CoHarden, a co-generation framework that uses the Lax signal as an in-loop convergence criterion. CoHarden first generates a test before any fix, then iteratively hardens the test and fix against surviving mutation patches until the generated test no longer admits Lax regressions. Experiments show that CoHarden reaches 69.4% Resolved and 78.9% F->P on SWE-bench Verified, outperforming the strongest fix-only and cogeneration baselines by +9.6 and +7.9 percentage points in Resolved, respectively, with consistent gains across LLM backbones and benchmarks.

While Large Language Models have greatly advanced automated issue resolution, existing agent-based methods exhibit a fundamental limitation in their insufficient exploration of repair strategies. This insufficiency manifests in two key aspects. First, the exploration of multiple potential edit locations is limited. Second, the exploration of repair attempts at each location is also insufficient. To address these challenges, we present PhoenixRepair, a multi-agent framework that systematically explores multiple candidate edit locations and performs iterative reflection and refinement on patch generation, thereby expanding the search space of repair strategies. Our framework begins with multi-location sampling, optionally augmented with graph-based localization information for difficult tasks, followed by iterative reflection and refinement to generate better patches, culminating in final-round generation guided by distilled insights from all historical attempts. Experiments on SWE-bench-Verified demonstrate that PhoenixRepair achieves the largest relative improvement of 7.8% over SWE-agent under DeepSeek-V3.1, and attains the highest resolved rate of 76.0% Pass@1 under MiniMax-M2.5. Meanwhile, it achieves higher fault localization accuracy than existing approaches. Our code is available at https://github.com/DeepSoftwareAnalytics/PhoenixRepair.

Large language models (LLMs) have improved automated program repair (APR), but two limitations remain. First, raw execution traces are often too large and repetitive to serve as effective model context. Second, repeated patch sampling may produce different implementations without yielding distinct root-cause hypotheses or repair strategies. We present CT-Repair, an agentic APR framework representing static and dynamic evidence as queryable Code Property Graph (CPG) and Temporal Execution Graph (TEG). CT-Repair applies a three-stage filtering pipeline to construct compact TEGs. Three finite-state-machine-guided agents analyze each bug from static, dynamic, and hybrid perspectives and independently produce evidence-grounded repair strategies. A strategy-guided generation procedure instantiates these strategies as candidate patches and uses validation feedback to refine the most promising strategy. We evaluate CT-Repair on 854 Java bugs from Defects4J v3.0. In the mixed-model configuration, CT-Repair correctly repairs 489 bugs. Under a controlled GPT-5.4-mini configuration, it repairs 388 bugs, 19 and 30 more than ReinFix and RepairAgent, respectively. The union of the three evidence perspectives repairs 99 more bugs than the strongest individual perspective. The filtering pipeline also compacts runtime evidence, with execution filtering narrowing the candidate method scope by 94.85% on average and behavior filtering further reducing retained runtime records by 55.97%. These results show that structured runtime evidence and multi-perspective reasoning can improve repair effectiveness without relying solely on a larger patch-generation budget.

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.

Large language model agents can repair real repository issues, but they often spend large context budgets on whole-file reads, broad searches, and long terminal outputs where useful evidence is mixed with irrelevant code and logs. This paper presents ContextSniper, AntTrail's code-repair module for precision evidence selection in repository-level program repair, part of AntTrail's broader agent-memory engine. AntTrail is available at https://gitcode.com/datagallery/AntTrail. ContextSniper indexes code and action memory as three abstract levels, retrieves candidates with a hybrid ranker, filters long tool output through an intention-aware context gate, and returns compact evidence packets while keeping full source recoverable on demand. In a matched 50-task-per-condition comparison on SWE-bench Lite (same tasks, baseline vs.\ ContextSniper), ContextSniper reduces total token use by 51.5% and logged cost by 36.4% for OpenClaw, and by 38.9% and 27.3% for Claude Code, with submitted-resolution rates essentially unchanged in both host-agent settings. In a separate five-task comparison, ContextSniper beats existing memory- and RAG-style integrations on token efficiency. These results suggest ContextSniper can substantially cut token and cost overhead for repository-level repair agents without a measurable loss in repair quality. The evaluation harness for this study is available at https://gitcode.com/lukchiwang/ContextSniper.

Repository-level vulnerability reproduction is a demanding software engineering (SE) task: an agent must inspect a codebase, infer the input grammar that reaches a vulnerable path, construct a proof-of-conceptv(PoC), and verify that the crash disappears on the patched build. Recent LLM agents can often execute these steps when the approach is correct, yet they still fail by choosing the wrong strategy. This paper argues that strategy, rather than the full action trajectory, is the right learning unit for such SE agents: it is compact enough to optimize, concrete enough to guide execution, and stable enough to store and reuse across attempts. We present Mastermind, a dual-loop framework that separates transferable strategy learning from task-specific experience. A trainable planner learns reusable vulnerability-reproduction strategies through SFT and milestone-based GRPO, while an experience loop maintains task-local strategy records that guide subsequent attempts. The planner is trained independently of the executor, allowing strategy learning to improve multiple frozen executors without modifying their action-generation capability. We evaluate Mastermind on CyberGym using 260 training tasks and 200 held-out evaluation tasks. With GPT-5.5 as the frozen executor, Mastermind achieves an 84.5% pass rate, outperforming open-book PoC context (60.0%), Best-of-8 sampling (63.0%), and iterative improvement (77.0%). The same planner also improves GPT-5.4 mini and GLM~5.1 from 45.0% and 58.5% to 60.0% and 71.0%. These results demonstrate that learning high-level strategies is an effective and transferable mechanism for improving repository-scale SE agents.

Programming-by-example systems infer programs from a small set of input-output examples. Robust PBE work usually models wrong examples as samples from a stochastic noise process and then minimizes an expected or empirical loss. This paper studies a different failure mode: an adversary who sees the synthesizer and chooses the examples whose corruption most damages the returned program. We formalize fixed-set worst-case corruption for finite PBE version spaces, implement exact-within-bounded-pool and heuristic corruption searches for a string-transformation DSL, and introduce version-space partition aggregation (VPA), a defense that synthesizes on disjoint example groups and votes by semantic signatures. The central claim is deliberately bounded and partly negative: low-margin PBE tasks have an adversarial robustness dimension that random-typo and noisy-PBE evaluations miss, while semantic partition aggregation helps only when the clean semantics keep a partition vote margin, which often fails on realistic tasks. Evidence from curated/generated DSL tasks, accepted public SyGuS PBE_SLIA slices, SYNTRA Playgol v2, and noisy-PBE objective baselines supports that boundary. One curated edit flips all 8 spike tasks while 200-trial typo, DSL-pool, and distance-matched random controls succeed on 10.3%, 11.0%, and 16.7%; generated margin-1 rows flip under budget 1 yet VPA recovers them; on public SyGuS the vote margin is near one, so an adaptive attacker drives VPA accuracy to zero; accepted public SyGuS slices move across exact-within-pool budget boundaries; and Playgol shows positive paired-bootstrap gaps against typo and same-pool random controls on the 141 accepted rows. A small exact-output prompt harness over 20 controlled margin-1 tasks shows the same qualitative clean-to-attacked pattern across local and API models, while it is treated as a scope check, not a broad LLM benchmark.

Automated vulnerability repair has emerged as a promising direction to mitigate the growing number of software vulnerabilities. Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have further accelerated research in automated repair. However, existing frameworks remain largely restricted to memory-related vulnerabilities and locally repairable vulnerability settings, leaving generalization to unseen vulnerability types underexplored. Their evaluations are often limited to a single programming language, and largely rely on proprietary models. In this paper, we propose RAVEN, a scalable, efficient and autonomous framework that integrates an agentic retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) pipeline with controlled iterative repair in a unified framework. The framework utilizes open-source LLMs in a fully locally deployable setting with limited GPU requirements, while building a multi-faceted retrieval pipeline to retrieve historically relevant vulnerability fixes and guide the patch generation. In addition, RAVEN introduces a dedicated Curator Agent that retrieves cross-file dependencies from the target repository, to fix complex vulnerabilities that cannot be addressed using local vulnerable code alone. We evaluate RAVEN on 160 real-world CVE vulnerabilities across diverse vulnerability types, two programming languages, unseen CWE categories, and out-of-distribution settings. RAVEN achieves an overall repair success rate of 83.13%, outperforming all existing state-of-the-art repair frameworks, while also demonstrating strong generalization capabilities and maintaining the repair cost negligible.

LLM-based automated program repair (APR) agents generate patches to fix software bugs with minimal human intervention. These agents often produce long trajectories of reasoning, tool use, and feedback to produce candidate patches. Final patch outcomes show whether a repair attempt succeeded or failed, but they do not show how the agent reached that outcome, or where the process became repetitive or misaligned with the task. This makes agentic repair failures difficult to diagnose, reproduce, and prevent. To help developers address these challenges, we present TraceView, an interactive tool for labeling and visualizing repair trajectories from APR systems. TraceView organizes raw and pre-labeled agentic runs with Thought, Action, and Result components to support semantic relation labeling and diagnosis, and renders the resulting trajectory as graph views. Furthermore, TraceView provides relation filters, patch outcome summaries, metrics, and node-level evidence panels to help users inspect how reasoning, actions, and feedback connect across the various steps of an agentic repair attempt. We evaluate TraceView with five researchers through a survey-based user study. Participants reported that TraceView made trajectories easier to scan and that its overview-to-detail workflow helped them better understand repair behavior. The TraceView source code is available at https://github.com/SOAR-Lab/agent-traj-visualization. A screencast of TraceView is available at https://youtu.be/9ZCh7Ifj2AQ.

Misconfigurations in computer networks remain a major source of critical Internet outages. Research is turning to Large Language Models (LLMs) to automate the complex, error-prone task of network configuration. However, even state-of-the-art models fail to resolve misconfigurations in large-scale, complex scenarios and often introduce new errors. In this work, we benchmark open- and closed-source LLMs augmented with formal network verification and context retrieval tools. We demonstrate that agentic architectures outperform base LLMs in repair efficacy (by 12% on average) and safety (by 17% on average), enabled by the ability to dynamically manage context and iteratively validate configuration repairs.

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. Traditional analysis techniques can provide suspicious locations, reduced triggers, or constraints, but they are costly to configure across repositories and seldom directly actionable for patch generation. Recent LLM-based agents can edit and validate repository-level patches, and experience-based systems can reuse prior repair traces or demonstrations, but they still need current-instance evidence that turns a broad, symptom-level failure report into a concrete repair decision. We present ContraFix, an agentic AVR framework that constructs such evidence through contrastive runtime analysis. Starting from a failing witness, ContraFix generates nearby failing and non-failing variants, executes them through aligned probe sites, and compares their runtime states to infer the repair boundary and guide source-level patching. Each candidate patch is accepted only after build and validation. ContraFix also stores validated repair episodes in a dual-track skill base, reusing mutation skills to construct useful variants and correction skills to refine failed patches. On SEC-Bench, ContraFix with GPT-5-mini achieves resolution rate of 92.0% over three repeated runs and an average resolution rate of 91.8% +/- 0.8. On PatchEval, it resolves 73.8% of 225 Go, Python, and JavaScript instances. A semantic audit of benchmark-validated SEC-Bench patches shows that 58.2% of ContraFix's patches are semantically correct, compared with 31.3% for the strongest baseline, indicating that the proposed framework improves semantic correctness beyond benchmark validation.

Modern software ecosystems face a rapidly growing number of disclosed vulnerabilities, increasing the need for automated repair techniques that can operate reliably at repository scale. Although Large Language Model (LLM)-based agents have recently shown promise for automated vulnerability repair (AVR), most existing systems still treat repair as a single generation step over the currently visible code context. As a result, they lack a persistent mechanism for reusing prior fixes or learning from failed validation attempts, which limits their effectiveness on complex, multi-file repair tasks. We present MemRepair, a memory-augmented agentic framework that formulates vulnerability repair as an iterative, experience-driven process. MemRepair combines three complementary memory layers, i.e., History-Fix, Security-Pattern, and Refinement-Trajectory memories, with a dynamic feedback-driven refinement loop. This design allows the agent to retrieve repository-specific repair conventions, apply reusable security defenses, and exploit prior "failure-to-success" trajectories to revise semantically invalid patches based on runtime evidence. We evaluate MemRepair on three representative repository-level vulnerability repair benchmarks: SEC-Bench, PatchEval (Python, Go, JavaScript), and the C++ subset of Multi-SWE-bench. MemRepair achieves state-of-the-art resolution rates of 58.0%, 58.2%, and 30.58%, respectively, outperforming strong general-purpose agents such as OpenHands and SWE-agent, as well as the specialized AVR tool InfCode-C++, while maintaining competitive repair cost. These results show that persistent, hierarchical repair memory can substantially improve the reliability of agentic vulnerability repair across diverse languages and repository settings.

Code agents increasingly help developers work with unfamiliar repositories, but every such task depends on a costly prerequisite: bootstrapping the repository into a usable development state. This process requires substantial trial-and-error exploration, yet the resulting knowledge--resolved dependencies, repair strategies--stays trapped in a single conversation, unavailable to future agents. We therefore formulate repository bootstrapping as a reusable startup knowledge problem and introduce BootstrapAgent, a multi-agent framework that distills the heuristics discovered during bootstrap exploration into a persistent, verifiable, agent-consumable .bootstrap contract. Through evidence extraction, structured planning, deterministic Docker-based verification, and trace-driven repair, BootstrapAgent generates a contract covering environment setup, diagnostic checks, minimal verification, and accumulated repair knowledge. We further propose warm repair with clean replay to accelerate iterative debugging without sacrificing cold-start reproducibility, and a delta repair with sanity check to prevent reward hacking. Experiments on three benchmarks show that BootstrapAgent achieves a 92.9% success rate, outperforming the baseline by over 10% while reducing downstream agent token usage by 25.9% and build time by 22.3%. Our code is available at https://github.com/Vossera/BootstrapAgent.

Reinforcement learning for program repair is hindered by sparse execution feedback and coarse sequence-level rewards that obscure which edits actually fix bugs. We present BoostAPR, a three-stage framework addressing these challenges: (1) supervised fine-tuning on execution-verified demonstrations with reasoning traces, (2) training dual reward models--a sequence-level assessor and a line-level credit allocator--from execution outcomes, and (3) PPO optimization where the line-level model redistributes rewards to critical edit regions. This line-level credit assignment operates at an intermediate granularity naturally suited to code changes. Trained on SWE-Gym and evaluated on four benchmarks, BoostAPR achieves 40.7% on SWE-bench Verified (+22.9pp over base model), 24.8% on Defects4J (Python-to-Java transfer), 84.5% on HumanEval-Java, and 95.0% on QuixBugs, achieving competitive results among open-source models with strong cross-language generalization.

Code-agent RL often receives weak feedback: rollout-time signals are reliable and executable, but capture only necessary or surface conditions for task success rather than the target semantic predicate. Using agentic compile-fix as the setting, we study signal reshaping for standard GRPO under such feedback. Our central claim is that GRPO's within-group comparison is meaningful only after three kinds of signals are reshaped: outcome rewards recover semantic ranking, process signals localize intra-trajectory credit, and rollouts from the same prompt remain execution-comparable. We operationalize these conditions with a minimal signal-reshaping construction that leaves GRPO's group-normalized advantage construction unchanged: compile-and-semantic layered rewards reshape trajectory ranking, step-level process scores outside group reward normalization reshape within-trajectory update strength, and failure-cause-aware rollout governance reshapes within-group comparability. Experiments show a clear end-to-end gain: full signal-reshaped GRPO improves strict compile-and-semantic accuracy from the base model's zero-shot $0.385$ to $0.535$. Controlled comparisons further explain the source of this gain: binary rewards remove the compile-only middle tier and degrade trajectory control; on top of layered rewards, process-score weighting further improves accuracy from $0.48$ to $0.53$ and reduces average evaluation steps from $23.50$ to $17.02$. As a boundary comparison, privileged-prompt token-level distillation mainly optimizes local distributional alignment; in long tool-use trajectories, this signal is diluted by non-critical tokens and cannot replace outcome semantics, process credit, or within-group comparability.

Automated program repair at repository scale requires an agent to locate a fault among thousands of files and synthesize a correct patch. Existing graph-based agents represent how a repository is organized into files, classes, and functions, but they do not model how variable values flow within a procedure, which leaves the agent without the semantic precision that function-level and line-level localization demand. We present ARISE (Agentic Repository-level Issue Solving Engine), a framework-agnostic toolset that builds a multi-granularity program graph, extending structural relationships down to statement-level nodes connected by intra-procedural definition-use edges, and exposes it through a three-tier tool API that mounts on any tool-use agentic framework. The central primitive is data-flow slicing, a queryable agent tool that traces in a single call which statements define or consume a variable of interest. On SWE-bench Lite (300 real GitHub issues across 11 Python repositories) with the open-source Qwen2.5-Coder-32B-Instruct backbone, mounting ARISE on SWE-agent as the host resolves 22.0% of issues (66/300), a 4.7 percentage-point gain over the unmodified SWE-agent baseline under the identical backbone and host. We show this gain is largely attributable to sharper localization, with Function Recall@1 (R@1) rising from 0.43 to 0.60 (a 40% relative gain) and Line R@1 from 0.26 to 0.41 (a 58% relative gain). Controlled ablations attribute the improvement to the data-flow graph rather than the tool schema, and we further mount the same toolset on a second host framework to study its portability. Decoupled from any single scaffold, the graph builder and slicing API form a drop-in toolset for future repair research.

Maintaining reliable UI test suites in large-scale enterprise applications is a persistent and costly challenge. We present an industrial case study of a multi-agent autonomous testing system evaluated using anonymized execution data from a production-like enterprise UI testing prototype. The application features several hundred dynamic UI elements per screen. Built on a large language model with LangGraph orchestration, Playwright execution, and a RAG knowledge base, the system evolves from human-directed testing toward High-autonomy feature discovery and test execution: given no explicit test targets, it discovers over 100 testable features across 10 UI screens, dynamically expands coverage by an additional 15--30 features through runtime DOM analysis, and iteratively repairs failing tests without human intervention. We analyzed 300 consecutive autonomous execution reports encompassing 636 individual test-case executions across 10 distinct scenario families. The system achieved a 70% repair convergence rate at the scenario-family level, with a mean of 3.4 repair iterations to convergence. However, only 10% of scenario families succeeded on first attempt, 38% of reports failed to produce any executable test artifact, and we documented concrete instances of assertion weakening and test-case deletion used as workaround mechanisms to achieve superficial convergence. Our findings show that unrestricted autonomy leads to unstable and often misleading outcomes, while constrained autonomy transforms such systems into operationally viable workflows. Rather than advocating full autonomy, our findings suggest that reliable autonomous testing in enterprise-scale settings requires explicit constraints, validation boundaries, and human oversight to preserve semantic correctness and operational trustworthiness.

LLM-based automated program repair (APR) techniques have shown promising results in reducing debugging costs. However, prior results can be affected by data leakage: large language models (LLMs) may memorize bug fixes when evaluation benchmarks overlap with their pretraining data, leading to inflated performance estimates. In this paper, we investigate whether we can better reveal data leakage by combining metamorphic testing (MT) with negative log-likelihood (NLL), which has been used in prior work as a proxy for memorization. We construct variant benchmarks by applying semantics-preserving transformations to two widely used datasets, Defects4J and GitBug-Java. Using these benchmarks, we evaluate the repair success rates of seven LLMs on both original and transformed versions, and analyze the relationship between performance degradation and NLL. Our results show that all evaluated state-of-the-art LLMs exhibit substantial drops in patch generation success rates on transformed benchmarks, ranging from -4.1% for GPT-4o to -15.98% for Llama-3.1. Furthermore, we find that this degradation strongly correlates with NLL on the original benchmarks, suggesting that models perform better on instances they are more likely to have memorized. These findings show that combining MT with NLL provides stronger and more reliable evidence of data leakage, while metamorphic testing alone can help mitigate its effects in LLM-based APR evaluations.

The transition from neural machine translation to agentic workflows has revolutionized Automated Program Repair (APR). However, existing agents, despite their advanced reasoning capabilities, frequently suffer from the Intent Gap'' -- the misalignment between the generated patch and the developer's original intent. Current solutions relying on natural language summaries or adversarial sampling often fail to provide the deterministic constraints required for surgical repairs. In this paper, we introduce \textsc{Prometheus}, a novel framework that bridges this gap by prioritizing \textit{Specification Inference} over code generation. We employ Behavior-Driven Development (BDD) as an executable contract, utilizing a multi-agent architecture to reverse-engineer Gherkin specifications from runtime failure reports. To resolve the Hallucination of Intent,'' we propose a \textbf{Requirement Quality Assurance (RQA) Loop}, a mechanism that leverages ground-truth code as a proxy oracle to validate inferred specifications. We evaluated \textsc{Prometheus} on 680 defects from the Defects4J benchmark. The results are transformative: our framework achieved a total correct patch rate of \textbf{93.97%} (639/680). More significantly, it demonstrated a \textbf{Rescue Rate of 74.4%}, successfully repairing 119 complex bugs that a strong blind agent failed to resolve. Qualitative analysis reveals that explicit intent guides agents away from structurally invasive over-engineering toward precise, minimal corrections. Our findings suggest that the future of APR lies not in larger models, but in the capability to align code with verified, \textbf{Executable Specifications} -- whether pre-existing or reverse-engineered.

RTL program repair remains a critical bottleneck in hardware design and verification. Traditional automatic program repair (APR) methods rely on predefined templates and synthesis, limiting their bug coverage. Large language models (LLMs) and coding agents based on them offer flexibility but suffer from randomness and context corruption when handling long RTL code and waveforms. We present Clover, a neural-symbolic agentic harness that orchestrates RTL repair as a structured search over code manipulations to explore a validated solution for the bug. Recognizing that different repair operations favor distinct strategies, Clover dynamically dispatches tasks to specialized LLM agents or symbolic solvers. At its core, Clover introduces stochastic tree-of-thoughts, a test-time scaling mechanism that manages the main agent's context as a search tree, balancing exploration and exploitation for reliable outcomes. An RTL-specific toolbox further empowers agents to interact with the debugging environment. Evaluated on the RTL-repair benchmark, Clover fixes 96.8% of bugs within a fixed time limit, covering 94% and 63% more bugs than both pure traditional and LLM-based baselines, respectively, while achieving an average pass@1 rate of 87.5%, demonstrating high reliability and effectiveness.

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.