Automated Program Repair (APR) uses various tools and techniques to help developers achieve functional and errorfree code faster. In recent years, Large Language Models (LLMs) have gained popularity as components in APR tool chains because of their performance and flexibility. However, training such models requires a significant amount of resources. Fine-tuning techniques have been developed to adapt pre-trained LLMs to specific tasks, such as APR, and enhance their performance at far lower computational costs than training from scratch. In this study, we empirically investigate the impact of various fine-tuning techniques on the performance of llms used for APR. Our experiments provide insights into the performance of a selection of state-of-the-art LLMs pre-trained on code. The evaluation is done on three popular APR benchmarks (i.e., QuixBugs, Defects4J and HumanEval-Java) and considers six different LLMs with varying parameter sizes (resp. CodeGen, CodeT5, StarCoder, DeepSeekCoder, Bloom, and CodeLlama2). We consider three training regimens: no fine-tuning, full fine-tuning, and parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) using LoRA and IA3. We observe that full fine-tuning techniques decrease the benchmarking performance of various models due to different data distributions and overfitting. By using parameterefficient fine-tuning methods, we restrict models in the amount of trainable parameters and achieve better results.

Program synthesis with Large Language Models (LLMs) suffers from a “near-miss syndrome”: The generated code closely resembles a correct solution but fails unit tests due to minor errors. We address this with a multi-agent framework called Synthesize, Execute, Instruct, Debug, and Repair (SEIDR). Effectively applying SEIDR to instruction-tuned LLMs requires determining (a) optimal prompts for LLMs, (b) what ranking algorithm selects the best programs in debugging rounds, and (c) balancing the repair of unsuccessful programs with the generation of new ones. We empirically explore these tradeoffs by comparing replace-focused, repair-focused, and hybrid debug strategies. We also evaluate lexicase and tournament selection to rank candidates in each generation. On Program Synthesis Benchmark 2 (PSB2), our framework outperforms both conventional use of OpenAI Codex without a repair phase and traditional genetic programming approaches. SEIDR outperforms the use of an LLM alone, solving 18 problems in C++ and 20 in Python on PSB2 at least once across experiments. To assess generalizability, we employ GPT-3.5 and Llama 3 on the PSB2 and HumanEval-X benchmarks. Although SEIDR with these models does not surpass current state-of-the-art methods on the Python benchmarks, the results on HumanEval-C++ are promising. SEIDR with Llama 3-8B achieves an average pass@100 of 84.2%. Across all SEIDR runs, 163 of 164 problems are solved at least once with GPT-3.5 in HumanEval-C++, and 162 of 164 with the smaller Llama 3-8B. We conclude that SEIDR effectively overcomes the near-miss syndrome in program synthesis with LLMs.

Context: Large language models trained on source code can support a variety of software development tasks, such as code recommendation and program repair. Large amounts of data for training such models benefit the models' performance. However, the size of the data and models results in long training times and high energy consumption. While publishing source code allows for replicability, users need to repeat the expensive training process if models are not shared. Goals: The main goal of the study is to investigate if publications that trained language models for software engineering (SE) tasks share source code and trained artifacts. The second goal is to analyze the transparency on training energy usage. Methods: We perform a snowballing-based literature search to find publications on language models for source code, and analyze their reusability from a sustainability standpoint. Results: From a total of 494 unique publications, we identified 293 relevant publications that use language models to address code-related tasks. Among them, 27% (79 out of 293) make artifacts available for reuse. This can be in the form of tools or IDE plugins designed for specific tasks or task-agnostic models that can be fine-tuned for a variety of downstream tasks. Moreover, we collect insights on the hardware used for model training, as well as training time, which together determine the energy consumption of the development process. Conclusion: We find that there are deficiencies in the sharing of information and artifacts for current studies on source code models for software engineering tasks, with 40% of the surveyed papers not sharing source code or trained artifacts. We recommend the sharing of source code as well as trained artifacts, to enable sustainable reproducibility. Moreover, comprehensive information on training times and hardware configurations should be shared for transparency on a model's carbon footprint.

Current approaches to program synthesis with Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit a "near miss syndrome": they tend to generate programs that semantically resemble the correct answer (as measured by text similarity metrics or human evaluation), but achieve a low or even zero accuracy as measured by unit tests due to small imperfections, such as the wrong input or output format. This calls for an approach known as Synthesize, Execute, Debug (SED), whereby a draft of the solution is generated first, followed by a program repair phase addressing the failed tests. To effectively apply this approach to instruction-driven LLMs, one needs to determine which prompts perform best as instructions for LLMs, as well as strike a balance between repairing unsuccessful programs and replacing them with newly generated ones. We explore these trade-offs empirically, comparing replace-focused, repair-focused, and hybrid debug strategies, as well as different template-based and model-based prompt-generation techniques. We use OpenAI Codex as the LLM and Program Synthesis Benchmark 2 as a database of problem descriptions and tests for evaluation. The resulting framework outperforms both conventional usage of Codex without the repair phase and traditional genetic programming approaches.

The use of modern Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques has shown to be beneficial for software engineering tasks, such as vulnerability detection and type inference. However, training deep NLP models requires significant computational resources. This paper explores techniques that aim at achieving the best usage of resources and available information in these models.

A long-standing open challenge for automated program repair is the overfitting problem, which is caused by having insufficient or incomplete specifications to validate whether a generated patch is correct or not. Most available repair systems rely on weak specifications (i.e., specifications that are synthesized from test cases) which limits the quality of generated repairs. To strengthen specifications and improve the quality of repairs, we propose to closer integrate static bug detection techniques with automated program repair. The integration combines automated program repair with static analysis techniques in such a way that bug detection patterns can be synthesized into specifications that the repair system can use. We explore the feasibility of such integration using two types of bugs: arithmetic bugs, such as integer overflow, and logical bugs, such as termination bugs. As part of our analysis, we make several observations that help to improve patch generation for these classes of bugs. Moreover, these observations assist with narrowing down the candidate patch search space, and inferring an effective search order.