FixGPT: A Novel Three-Tier Deep Learning Model for Automated Program Repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automatic program repair plays a crucial role in the software development and implementation. While deep learning-based approaches have made significant progress, one inherent challenge is the inefficiency in code representation, which hampers accurate patch generation. Furthermore, the training data used by these data-driven approaches may be limited, and they may not be able to capture the subtle differences between vulnerabilities and patches. To address these issues, FixGPT, we propose a three-tier deep learning model in the study. Specifically, a generative pre-trained transformer model is designed in the first tier to capture code characteristics and programming patterns. The second tier integrates a generation model based on the structure of neural machine translation, for the purpose of generating potential patches. Finally, a contrast model is introduced in the last tier to differentiate between the vulnerability and the patch. We also incorporate the Byte Pair Encoding approach to reduce the search space by converting identifiers into subwords. Detailed experimental studies have been carried out to evaluate the performance of FixGPT on two well-known benchmarking datasets: QuixBugs and Defects4J. The results demonstrated significant improvements in the effectiveness and accuracy in comparison with existing solutions. We complement these findings through the analysis of two case studies.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".