REVIEW 2 cited by
Counterexample Guided Program Repair Using Zero-Shot Learning and MaxSAT-based Fault Localization
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Automated Program Repair (APR) for introductory programming assignments (IPAs) is motivated by the large number of student enrollments in programming courses each year. Since providing feedback on IPAs requires substantial time and effort from faculty, personalized feedback often involves suggesting fixes to students' programs. Formal Methods (FM)-based semantic repair approaches, check a program's execution against a test suite or reference solution, are effective but limited. These tools excel at identifying buggy parts but can only fix programs if the correct implementation and the faulty one share the same control flow graph. Conversely, Large Language Models (LLMs) are used for APR but often make extensive instead of minimal rewrites. This leads to more invasive fixes, making it harder for students to learn from their mistakes. In summary, LLMs excel at completing strings, while FM-based fault localization excel at identifying buggy parts of a program. In this paper, we propose a novel approach that combines the strengths of both FM-based fault localization and LLMs, via zero-shot learning, to enhance APR for IPAs. Our method uses MaxSAT-based fault localization to identify buggy parts of a program, then presents the LLM with a program sketch devoid of these buggy statements. This hybrid approach follows a CEGIS loop to iteratively refine the program. We ask the LLM to synthesize the missing parts, which are then checked against a test suite. If the suggested program is incorrect, a counterexample from the test suite is fed back to the LLM. Our experiments show that our counterexample guided approach, using MaxSAT-based bug-free program sketches, significantly improves the repair capabilities of all six evaluated LLMs. This method allows LLMs to repair more programs with smaller fixes, outperforming other configurations and state-of-the-art symbolic program repair tools.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Procedural Refinement by LLM-driven Algorithmic Debugging for ARC-AGI-2
Semantic proof-tree traces from a Prolog meta-interpreter let LLMs abduce local rule fixes, raising ARC-AGI-2 Pass@2 up to 98.33% and beating execution-only repair.
-
Natural-Language to SysMLv2 Translation via Conformance-Driven Iterative Refinement
Wrapping LLM generation in a loop that repairs until a production SysMLv2 checker reports zero errors lifts benchmark conformance from 51.16% single-shot to 100%, in at most 8 attempts per case.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.