Better test cases for better automated program repair
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automated generate-and-validate program repair techniques (G&V techniques) suffer from generating many overfitted patches due to in-capabilities of test cases. Such overfitted patches are incor- rect patches, which only make all given test cases pass, but fail to fix the bugs. In this work, we propose an overfitted patch detec- tion framework named Opad (Overfitted PAtch Detection). Opad helps improve G&V techniques by enhancing existing test cases to filter out overfitted patches. To enhance test cases, Opad uses fuzz testing to generate new test cases, and employs two test or- acles (crash and memory-safety) to enhance validity checking of automatically-generated patches. Opad also uses a novel metric (named O-measure) for deciding whether automatically-generated patches overfit. Evaluated on 45 bugs from 7 large systems (the same benchmark used by GenProg and SPR), Opad filters out 75.2% (321/427) over- fitted patches generated by GenProg/AE, Kali, and SPR. In addition, Opad guides SPR to generate correct patches for one more bug (the original SPR generates correct patches for 11 bugs). Our analysis also shows that up to 40% of such automatically-generated test cases may further improve G&V techniques if empowered with better test oracles (in addition to crash and memory-safety oracles employed by Opad).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it