Bibliographic record
Abstract
Existing template and learning-based Automated Program Repair (APR) tools have successfully found patches for many benchmark faults. However, our analysis of existing results shows that omission faults pose a significant challenge. For template based approaches, omission faults provide no location to apply templates to; for learning based approaches that formulate repair as Neural Machine Translation (NMT), omission faults similarly do not provide faulty code to translate. To address these issues, we propose GLAD, a novel learning-based repair technique that targets if-clause synthesis. GLAD does not require a concrete faulty line as it is based on generative Language Models (LMs) instead of machine translation; consequently, it can repair omission faults. To provide the LM with project-specific information critical to synthesis, we incorporate two components: a type-based grammar that constrains the model, and a dynamic ranking system that evaluates candidate patches using a debugger. Our evaluation shows GLAD is highly orthogonal to existing techniques, correctly fixing 26 Defects4J v1.2 faults that previous NMT-based techniques could not, while maintaining a small runtime cost, underscoring its potential as a lightweight tool to complement existing tools in practice. An inspection of the bugs that GLAD fixes reveals that GLAD can quickly generate expressions that would be challenging for other techniques.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".