Automated Program Repair

In deployment settings where retraining is infeasible, small frozen code models are routinely asked to repair a failed program after seeing their own failing output, usually treated as a retry mechanism. From a Popperian view, a generated program is a conjecture and a test-execution violation is an oracle-relative, executable counterexample, so feedback's value should be attributed not to re-exposure to failing code but to whether the conjecture is opened to external, executable criticism. As the third stage of a falsification-centered measurement program, this study builds a placebo-controlled instrument that decomposes the feedback packet against a blind-resampling baseline at matched output-generation budget and against content-free, shape-matched placebos. The contribution is not a new repair algorithm but a reflexive methodology (packet decomposition, placebo mirroring, matched-budget discordant-pair tests, fresh-generation confirmation, executable audits) that makes both the model's program conjecture and the researcher's "feedback content works" claim falsifiable. Across six HumanEval+/MBPP+ cells with three 0.5B-1.5B frozen models, 290 dead task-cell units (no best-of-8 candidate passing the public tier) were evaluated; the main run produced 7,000 fresh generations and a preregistered follow-up 1,400 more. Blind resampling exceeded bare-code retry by +18 net unlocks (25/7, Holm p=0.0021). Code-plus-facts recovered +18 over bare code (21/3, p=0.00042) and +15 over a generic-bullet placebo (p=0.0041). An instruction-only effect was not distinguishable (+3, p=0.36). Code-plus-facts and blind resampling tied at 26 unlocks each (not equivalence). Six external-controller follow-ups tied a content-free shape placebo. In this regime, falsification helped not as vocabulary or self-critique, but as comparison with external, executable counterexamples.

Repository-grounded automated repair is often reported as a single end-to-end capability, which hides distinct failure modes such as poor file targeting, incorrect patch synthesis, and failed iterative debugging. We present Loc2Repair, a modular evaluation framework for controlled analysis of repository-grounded repair pipelines, and use it to isolate file-level issue localization as an upstream variable. Loc2Repair decouples localization and repair under a shared runtime, artifact schema, and evaluation harness, allowing researchers to combine different localization models and repair backbones under matched conditions. Using three repair backbones on SWE-bench Verified, we compare baseline repair without explicit localization, repair guided by predicted localization from two localizers, and repair guided by gold modified-file sets. Explicit localization consistently improves resolved rate across all backbones: pooled performance increases from 44.7% for baseline repair to 48.9% and 49.1% with predicted localization, and to 52.4% with gold localization. Localization also reduces mean elapsed time overall: in pooled paired analysis, mean elapsed time decreases by 100.94 s and 52.25 s for the two predicted-localization settings, and by 154.45 s with gold guidance, although token effects remain heterogeneous across models. Overall, Loc2Repair shows file-level localization is a consistent repair lever, improving effectiveness and mean latency in pooled analysis, while gold-guided failures expose headroom beyond localization.

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.

Program verifiers play a central role in training coding agents, including selecting trajectories for supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and providing rewards for reinforcement learning (RL). Standard execution-based verification requires running unit tests inside per-repository environments such as Docker images, incurring substantial environment setup costs. We propose Dockerless, an environment-free agentic patch verifier that evaluates generated code patches without executing them. Rather than simply matching candidate patches to references, Dockerless judges patch correctness using evidence gathered through agentic repository exploration. On a verifier evaluation benchmark, Dockerless outperforms the strongest open-source verifier by 14.3 AUC points. Using Dockerless as both the SFT trajectory filter and the RL reward enables a fully environment-free post-training pipeline. The resulting model reaches 62.0%, 50.0%, and 35.2% resolve rate on SWE-bench Verified, Multilingual, and Pro, respectively. It surpasses the Qwen3.5-9B baseline by 2.4, 8.7, and 2.9 points, matching environment-based post-training.

Security misconfigurations in Terraform Infrastructure-as-Code are a growing risk in cloud deployments, and large language models are increasingly used as automated repair agents. Existing evaluations often treat a repair as successful when the targeted static-analysis finding disappears, without checking planning validity, behavioral change, or security intent. This paper presents TerraProbe, a five-layer oracle framework for evaluating LLM-assisted Terraform security repair. We apply TerraProbe to 288 first-pass repairs generated by gemini-2.5-flash-lite, GPT-4o, and Claude 3.5 Sonnet across 68 real-world TerraDS modules and 28 controlled injected-defect modules. The results show that targeted Checkov removal overstates repair success. Although targeted removal reaches 83.3 percent for the primary model, full-scanner cleanliness drops to 10.4 percent, Terraform planning succeeds for 39.6 percent, and plan comparison is reachable for 38.5 percent. Human adjudication further shows that 71.4 percent of plan-compared real-world repairs are deceptive fixes that pass automated checks while leaving the underlying vulnerability in place. This pattern is statistically indistinguishable across the three models, with deceptive-fix rates from 57.1 percent to 71.4 percent and pairwise Fisher exact p-values above 0.10. The paper introduces a four-dimensional taxonomy of deceptive fixes, validated with Cohen kappa of 0.78 and Krippendorff alpha of 0.76. IAM permission analysis confirms that wildcard Resource grants persist in all nine CKV2 AWS 11 deceptive-fix cases. TerraProbe contributes an evaluation methodology, a replication package, and the Multi-Layer Oracle Evaluation framework for distinguishing intent-aligned security repairs from scanner-passing false successes.

Software-compilable C programs routinely fail to complete the four-stage pipeline of a high-level synthesis (HLS) toolchain -- compilation, C simulation (CSim), synthesis, and C/RTL co-simulation (CoSim) -- because HLS accepts only a synthesizable subset of C (HLS-C). Yet most existing large language model (LLM) systems built for HLS code repair only cover the early pipeline stages and feed raw tool logs directly to the model, yielding brittle and hard-to-reproduce fixes. We formulate C-to-HLS-C conversion as a closed-loop generation-verification-diagnosis-repair problem on an HLS tool (Xilinx Vitis), contributing three components: an end-to-end workflow of cooperating agents closed by the four-stage verifier under strict evidence isolation; a Progressive Mismatch Localization Chain (PMLC) that localizes CSim/CoSim mismatches through log normalization, AST backward slicing, and dual-trace instrumentation; and a typed-query, two-stage evidence RAG backed by a self-evolving, family-routed repair-card pool. Experimental results show that the proposed workflow substantially outperforms all comparable state-of-the-art models.

We present CyberChainBench, a benchmark for evaluating LLM-based agents on smart contract security across three complementary tasks: vulnerability detection, exploit generation, and patch synthesis. Built from 541 real-world exploit incidents from DeFiHackLabs spanning 9 EVM chains, the benchmark provides end-to-end on-chain evaluation where agents interact with historical blockchain state through isolated evaluation environments orchestrated by Harbor, using tools to read code, trace transactions, and validate exploits on mainnet forks. Each case is anchored to a specific block and includes structured ground truth covering vulnerability type, localization, and attacker profit. Exploits are graded by economic impact on historical forks; patches are validated by replaying historical attacks and legitimate transactions as fail-to-pass test oracles on a proxy-upgradeable subset. We define a five-type vulnerability taxonomy and evaluate multiple agent--model configurations. Results reveal a clear difficulty gradient: the best configuration scores 37.5% on detection, 43.7% on exploitation, but only 23.4% on patching, with the top agent (Codex with GPT-5.5) realizing $57.4M in total exploit profit across the 200-case exploit set at a cost of $2.39 per case.

Software vulnerability remediation is a cognitively demanding task that requires specialized security expertise often lacking in general developers. In the meantime, Large Language Models (LLMs) assisted tools show potential in vulnerability detection, location, and repair tasks. [Hypothesis:] While LLM-assistance is hypothesized to accelerate patching, it also risks introducing hallucinations or insecure code, leading to a higher likelihood of generating superficial repairs that bypass the standard functionality checks but fail the security validation. [Objective:] We aim to present an empirical experiment, unveiling the capability of LLM-assisted vulnerability patching compared to manual debugging on human participants in real-world scenarios. [Method:] We plan to conduct a controlled experiment using a Balanced Crossover design. For that, we have developed a WebApp for code execution and integrated hidden Ghost Tests to verify patch integrity beyond visible functional requirements. The experiment involves training and evaluation scenarios. The remediation speed, remediation efficacy for both standard functionality tests and security tests, and participant perception will be evaluated. [Pilot Study:] A pilot experiment with a small sample of participants has been conducted, providing insights for the following study.

Verilog debugging remains one of the most time-consuming stages in digital circuit design. Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have enabled automated debugging; however, most existing approaches rely solely on test outputs and compiler feedback in an end-to-end manner, limiting their effectiveness on complex bugs. A key challenge is that the root cause of an error may be far removed from its observable outputs, making it difficult for LLMs to trace long dependency chains in code. This challenge is further exacerbated in large codebases, where long context lengths hinder efficient reasoning. To address these limitations, we propose VeriPilot, an LLM-powered debugging framework that leverages golden reference models to enable fine-grained bug localization and repair. VeriPilot goes beyond output-level comparison by aligning internal variable semantics between the Verilog design and its corresponding golden model through LLM-based analysis. It then performs step-by-step signal tracing using Control-Data-Flow Graphs (CDFGs) derived from static analysis, identifying a minimal set of suspicious code regions along with their correct counterparts from the golden model. These structured insights are subsequently provided to the LLM to guide reasoning and automated code repair. Experimental results on the Comprehensive Verilog Design Problems (CVDP) benchmark from NVIDIA demonstrate that VeriPilot improves the repair success rate of GPT-4o from 54.3% to 85.71%, significantly enhancing both bug localization accuracy and repair effectiveness for complex Verilog designs. The source code and benchmark are publicly available at Github https://github.com/YihanWn/VeriPilot.git.

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.

Validating changes in low-level C firmware is expensive because unit tests (UTs) are fragile under strict build constraints, where missing headers, unresolved symbols, and dependency mismatches frequently prevent compilation and linking. This study introduces an automated UT authoring workflow for the Open-Source Silicon Initialization Library (openSIL) firmware codebase maintained by Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) that reduces manual effort through a large language model (LLM) guided multi-agent pipeline. The workflow combines automated generation of test scaffolds, library-aware creation or reuse of stubs, mocks, and fakes, and an iterative compile-dispatch repair loop driven by build logs and line-coverage feedback. We evaluate the approach using compilation success, repair iterations, dispatch success, and line coverage, with time, cost, and token usage as secondary measures. Across 76 functions under test, the workflow generated compilable UTs for 73 functions. In a configuration without line coverage guidance or retrieval augmentation, mean line coverage reached 73.9%. On a 48-function subset evaluated under both configurations, mean line coverage reached 98.8% with line-coverage guidance alone and reached 94.7% when combined with vector-database retrieval. Results show that automated generation-and-repair pipelines can substantially improve UT creation efficiency and coverage for constrained firmware environments while reducing manual debugging effort.

Despite strong performance in competitive programming, the role of Large Language Models (LLMs) in supporting human learning in the same setting remains largely unexplored. In this work, we introduce UOJ-Bench, a benchmark designed to evaluate not only the problem-solving ability of LLMs, but also their ability to identify errors in human-written code -- a crucial educational activity traditionally supported by running test cases over online judge systems. UOJ-Bench consists of three distinct tasks: code generation, code hacking, and code repair, all constructed from real-world code submissions on the Universal Online Judge (UOJ) and evaluated through UOJ's native judging infrastructure. Our results show that under one-shot evaluation, even the strongest models fail to identify errors in more than 50% of a set of submissions that have been found to be incorrect by UOJ users. While test-time scaling improves success rates to above 90%, the substantial computational costs incurred from model inference limit its practicality for large-scale deployment. Despite these limitations, we find that the best-performing models under test-time scaling can uncover errors in over 5% of full-score submissions across roughly 30 problems, suggesting that frontier LLMs can already provide complementary signals beyond standard judging systems.

AI has the potential to transform cybersecurity by enabling systems that can autonomously detect, analyze, and remediate software vulnerabilities. However, existing cybersecurity evaluations of AI systems are limited in scale or scope, and fail to capture the end-to-end lifecycle of real-world software vulnerability discovery and remediation. To address this gap, we propose CyberGym-E2E, a large-scale and realistic end-to-end cybersecurity benchmark that comprehensively evaluates AI agents' abilities across the full lifecycle of vulnerability discovery, PoC generation, and patch generation. CyberGym-E2E is comprehensive and scalable, as we build an automated, agent-enhanced pipeline for transforming open-source vulnerability data into realistic evaluation environments. Currently, the benchmark consists of 920 real-world vulnerabilities across 139 different open-source projects.

Large language models often generate code with bugs. Existing methods rely on feedback signals such as test failures and self-critiques to iteratively refine the generated code. Such signals are either too coarse-grained or too high-level, which is not sufficient to inform the model where to fix the bug. In this work, we present Flare, an iterative framework with a lightweight diagnostic model that predicts line-level suspiciousness signals for bug localization and code refinement. Given the inherent uncertainty of diagnostic predictions, Flare searches over the top-k suspicious regions and selects the best candidate according to execution outcomes. Experiments on LiveCodeBench and BigCodeBench with five base LLMs show that, even without candidate search (k=1), Flare outperforms the strongest baseline with an absolute improvement from 1.72% to 7.42%. Furthermore, searching over 10 candidates yields an average improvement of 8.50% compared with no candidate search. When evaluated in isolation, our lightweight diagnostic model achieves the best performance compared with recent fault localization methods, demonstrating that it can provide reliable fine-grained guidance for code refinement.

Large language models (LLMs) can turn grid-analysis requests into executable programs for power-system simulation, but utilities and research laboratories often require on-premise deployment. In this setting, first-pass failures frequently arise at an API-knowledge boundary, through hallucinated functions, misused parameters, and mishandled result tables. We present PowerCodeBench, a parameterised benchmark generator released as a frozen 2,000-task suite for pandapower, and a deployment-time workflow that requires no weight updates. Documentation-driven L0-L3 probes produce per-model API profiles for diagnosis, model comparison, documentation allocation, and backend calibration. A query-side demand estimator selects layered API evidence before generation, while execution feedback routes targeted repair. Across ten open-weight LLMs (1.5B-480B) and four mid-tier APIs, the validation-enabled workflow raises scalar-match accuracy by 32-56 percentage points after up to three repair rounds relative to an unassisted first pass, for every model of at least 7B and every API. Open-weight models in the 70B-120B range reach the four-vendor mid-tier accuracy range under matched no-tool conditions. Selective injection approaches the full-layer reference using 41% of its prompt tokens. Among model-item pairs passing numerical checks under both workflows, engineering review confirms the requested analysis in 88% of full-workflow outputs versus 66% under plain repair. Round-0 pilots on OpenDSS and PyPSA motivate staged onboarding from broad retrieval at cold start to calibrated selective injection. Measured throughput, latency, energy, and allocated GPU memory establish a practical on-premise serving envelope.

LLMs can now produce full HTML pages, but many of those pages are only superficially correct: they render once, then fail under scroll, hover, click, resize, or gameplay. Evaluation from screenshots can miss these failures, and filtering discards many pages that are still repairable. We introduce HTMLCure, a browser experience framework that evaluates HTML after the system has interacted with it. The evaluator executes the page across viewports and interaction states, records deterministic browser evidence, and gives the VLM curated keyframes from the executed trajectory rather than isolated screenshots. The same state signal drives a closed loop repair engine: HTMLCure diagnoses the current page, chooses a state specific repair family, runs each candidate again, and exports quality cleared pages for SFT. On a 97K prompt corpus, this expands the directly usable seed into a candidate pool of 63703 quality cleared pages, from which we construct the final refined SFT set of 40K pages. Under the same backbone and training recipe, HTMLCure-27B-Refined reaches 50.6 on HTMLBench-400 with 45.2% deterministic test case pass, placing it in the same performance band as strong reference rows such as Kimi-K2.6 and GPT-5.4. On the released MiniAppBench validation split, it reaches 81.2 average, improving raw 27B SFT by 15.3 points and approaching the level of strong reference systems.

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.

Large language models are increasingly used for code generation, but many generated programs fail to compile, a prerequisite for further correctness checks such as unit tests. Existing solutions for repairing static errors are costly in both latency and token consumption. Post-hoc repair delays error detection until generation completes and commonly regenerates large regions of previously valid code. Constrained semantic decoding checks after each token, incurring per-token overhead while limiting repair to the current token even when the root cause lies earlier. We present Hydra, a system for efficient recovery from static errors during code generation. Hydra allows checking to proceed asynchronously with generation, avoiding checker overhead when the generated code is semantically correct. In addition, it provides checkpoint-and-rollback support for targeted repair, avoiding regeneration and rechecking of valid prefixes. We retrofit the Clang C/C++ compiler to support Hydra with modest modifications. Paired with a token-efficient repair strategy, Hydra reduces latency by up to 71% and token consumption by up to 70% relative to post-hoc repair on C/C++ code generation tasks that encounter static errors.

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.

Software engineering agents are increasingly deployed in evaluable engineering environments, yet post-failure recovery remains costly, manual, and ad hoc. Existing systems expose traces or generate follow-up feedback, but they do not convert heterogeneous runtime evidence into grounded, bounded recovery guidance for a subsequent attempt. We present PROBE, a failure-anchored framework for structured recovery in software engineering agents. PROBE organizes failed-run telemetry into structured evidence, structured diagnosis, and bounded recovery guidance through a Telemetry Layer, a Diagnosis Layer, and a Guidance Gate. The Telemetry Layer preserves fine-grained runtime signals, the Diagnosis Layer fuses cross-signal evidence into grounded diagnoses, and the Guidance Gate produces diagnosis-derived guidance only when it is evidence-grounded, actionable, and within the scope of agent-side behavior. We evaluate PROBE across three settings: repository-level software repair, enterprise workflow recovery, and AIOps service mitigation. On 257 initially unresolved cases, PROBE achieves 65.37% Top-1 diagnosis accuracy and a 21.79% recovery rate, outperforming the strongest non-PROBE baseline by 43.58 and 12.45 percentage points. The results reveal a diagnosis-recovery gap: accurate diagnosis is necessary but insufficient unless translated into bounded guidance that a subsequent attempt can execute and verify. Beyond controlled evaluation, a Microsoft IcM prototype shows that PROBE can attach as a non-intrusive side channel to existing service-diagnosis workflows without changing the agent policy, toolset, or execution budget. These results suggest that telemetry-grounded, failure-anchored recovery can improve post-failure recoverability under realistic engineering constraints.

Debugging CUDA programs has long been challenging because failures often arise from subtle interactions among hardware behavior, compiler decisions, memory hierarchy, and asynchronous execution. More importantly, with the rapid expansion of GPU usage across scientific computing, machine learning, graphics, and systems workloads, CUDA debugging has become more challenging than ever. Current evaluations of LLM-based CUDA programming largely miss this setting: a model can pass correctness tests with repair by degeneration, simplifying the CUDA code into a safer but slower program that abandons the original optimization structure. We introduce CUDABEAVER, a benchmark for CUDA debugging from real failing workspaces produced during LLM-based CUDA generation. Each task provides the broken candidate, native build/test commands, raw error evidence, and a single editable file. CUDABEAVER evaluates whether a fixer truly repairs the failing CUDA code or merely finds a slower test-passing replacement, reporting results by failure category, debugging trajectory, stagnation mode, and performance preservation. We further propose pass@k(M,C,A), a protocol-conditional CUDA debugging metric by making the fixer M, corpus C, and protocol axes Aexplicit. Using this metric across 213 tasks and seven frontier LLMs, we show that protocol-aware evaluation gives a more faithful view of CUDA debugging ability: when performance-loss tolerance is high, fixers appear much stronger, but even a minor stricter performance requirement can sharply reduce measured success, shifting scores by up to 40 percentage points.

We present TraceFix, a verification-first pipeline for Large Language Model (LLM) multi-agent coordination. An agent synthesizes a protocol topology as a structured intermediate representation (IR) from a task description, generates PlusCal coordination logic, and iteratively repairs the protocol using counterexamples from the TLA+ model checker (TLC) until verification succeeds. Verified process bodies are compiled into per-agent system prompts and executed under a runtime monitor that rejects out-of-topology coordination operations. On 48 tasks spanning 16 scenario families, all tasks reach full TLC verification; 62.5% pass on the first attempt and none requires more than four repair iterations. State spaces span six orders of magnitude yet verification completes in under 60 s for every task. A 3,456-run runtime comparison shows that topology-monitored execution achieves the highest task completion (89.4% average, 81.5% full) and that runtimes using the verified protocol degrade at roughly half the rate of prompt-only and chat-only baselines when model capability is reduced. A paired ablation under a fixed runtime shows that TLC-verified protocols cut deadlock/livelock (DL/LL) from 31.1% to 14.1%, with the largest separation under fault injection.

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.

Architectural code smells erode software maintainability and are costly to repair manually, yet unlike localized bugs, they require cross-module reasoning about design intent that challenges both developers and automated tools. While large language model agents excel at bug fixing and code-level refactoring, their ability to repair architectural code smells remains unexplored. We present the first empirical evaluation of LLM agents on architectural code smell repair. We contribute SmellBench, a task orchestration framework that incorporates smell-type-specific optimized prompts and supports iterative multi-step execution, together with a scoring methodology that separately evaluates repair effectiveness, false positive identification, and net codebase impact. We evaluate 11 agent configurations from four model families (GPT, Claude, Gemini, Mistral) on 65 hard-severity architectural smells detected by PyExamine in the Python project scikit-learn, validated against expert judgments. Expert validation reveals that 63.1% of detected smells are false positives, while the best agent achieves a 47.7% resolution rate. Agents identify false positives with up to $κ= 0.94$ expert agreement, but repair aggressiveness and net codebase quality are inversely related: the most aggressive agent introduces 140 new smells. These findings expose a gap between current LLM capabilities in localized code transformations and the architectural understanding needed for cross-module refactoring. SmellBench provides reusable infrastructure for tracking progress on this underexplored dimension of automated software engineering. We release our code and data at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19247588.

LLM-based agents are increasingly applied to the "last mile" of Electronic Design Automation (EDA): repairing residual sign-off Design Rule Check (DRC) violations and converging Power-Performance-Area (PPA) targets after tool runs. Existing EDA-LLM benchmarks, however, omit DRC fixing entirely and rely on flat hierarchies tied to a single toolchain. We introduce PostEDA-Bench, a hierarchical benchmark with 145 tasks across DRC-Essential, DRC-Reasoning, PPA-Mono, and PPA-Multi, supported by EDA toolchains with machine-checkable evaluation. Across eight commercial and open-source LLMs under multiple agent scaffolds, we find that agents handle synthetic DRC-Essential and single-objective PPA-Mono reasonably well but degrade sharply on the more practical DRC-Reasoning, where the best success rate is 36.66%, and PPA-Multi, where the best success rate is 20.00%; vision augmentation consistently enhances DRC-Bench; and trade-off reasoning, rather than knob knowledge, is the dominant PPA-Multi bottleneck.

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.

Reliable spatial analysis in GIScience requires preserving coordinate semantics, topology, units, and geographic plausibility. Current LLM-based GIS systems generate fluent scripts but rarely enforce these geographic rules at scale. We present GeoContra, a verification and repair framework for LLM-driven Python GIS workflows. It represents each task as an executable geospatial contract-including natural-language questions, schemas, CRS metadata, expected outputs, spatial predicates, topology, metrics, required operations, and forbidden shortcuts. Generated programs undergo static rule inspection, runtime validation, and semantic verification, with violations fed back into a bounded repair loop. Evaluated on 7,079 real geospatial tasks across 15 Boston-area zones, 9 task families, and 11 open-source models (600 runs each), GeoContra improves spatial correctness on closed models from 47.6% to 77.5% for DeepSeek-V4 and from 57.7% to 81.5% for Kimi-K2.5. Across 11 open models, average correctness rises by 26.6%. GeoContra turns fluent code production into verifiable spatial analysis, catching negative travel times, CRS/field-schema violations, missing predicates, and brittle output casts that otherwise yield executable but geographically invalid results.

Deep Learning methods are becoming prominent in automated software bug detection; however, they lack the global understanding of the given code. Consequently, their performance tends to degrade, especially when they are applied to large interconnected code bases or complex modular programs. Recently, Large Language Models (LLMs) have proven to be effective at capturing dependencies among multiple interconnected modules in the codebase. This motivated us to propose the Flow-Graph-Driven Multi-Agent Framework (FGDM), which is composed of four agents that operate in a sequential manner. The framework converts the received code to a flow graph, identifies the erroneous segments, and further generates the repaired code. All the employed agents utilize Chain-of-Thought (COT) and Tree-of-Thoughts (TOT) prompts. Additionally, we also integrated with the FAISS vector database to retrieve similar previous bugs and their repairs. We demonstrated the efficacy of the proposed framework over 100 programs from several projects, including Ansible, Black, FastAPI, Keras, Luigi, Matplotlib, Pandas, Scrapy, SpaCy, and Tornado in both C and Python programs. Our experiments demonstrate that the FGDM outperforms the extant approaches and yielded reductions with a mean of 24.33 and 8.37 in Levenshtein distance and similarities of 0.951 and 0.974 in cosine similarity for Python and C, respectively.