Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automated Program Repair (APR) is defined as the process of fixing a bug/defect in the source code, by an automated tool. APR tools have recently experienced promising results by leveraging state-of-the-art Neural Language Processing (NLP) techniques. APR tools such as TFix and CodeXGLUE that combine text-to-text transformers with software-specific techniques are outperforming alternatives, these days. However, in most APR studies, the train and test sets are chosen from the same set of projects (i.e., when APR fixes a bug in the test set from project A, the model has already seen example fixed bugs from project A in the training set). In the real world, however, APR models are meant to be generalizable to new and different projects. Therefore, there is a potential threat that reported APR models with high effectiveness perform poorly when the characteristics of the new project or its bugs are different than the training set’s (“Domain Shift”). In this study, we first define the problem of domain shift in automated program repair. Next, we measure the potential damage of domain shift on two recent APR models (TFix and CodeXGLUE). Based on this observation, we then propose a domain adaptation framework that can adapt an APR model for a given target project. We conduct an empirical study with three domain adaptation methods FullFineTuning , TuningWithLightWeightAdapterLayers , and CurriculumLearning and two APR models on 2,672 bugs from 12 projects. The results show that our proposed framework on average can improve the effectiveness of TFix by 13.05% and CodeXGLUE by 48.78%, in terms of “Exact Match”. Through experiments, we also show that the framework provides high efficiency and reliability (in terms of “Exposure Bias”). Using synthetic data to domain adapt TFix and CodeXGLUE on the projects with no data (Zero-shot learning), also results in an average improvement of 5.76% and 17.62% for TFix and CodeXGLUE, respectively.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".