mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Identifying Patch Correctness in Test-Based Program Repair

arXiv 1706.09120 ↗First posted 28 Jun 2017cs.SEcited by 17

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Test-based automatic program repair has attracted a lot of attention in recent years. However, the test suites in practice are often too weak to guarantee correctness and existing approaches often generate a large number of incorrect patches. To reduce the number of incorrect patches generated, we propose a novel approach that heuristically determines the correctness of the generated patches. The core idea is to exploit the behavior similarity of test case executions. The passing tests on original and patched programs are likely to behave similarly while the failing tests on original and patched programs are likely to behave differently. Also, if two tests exhibit similar runtime behavior, the two tests are likely to have the same test results. Based on these observations, we generate new test inputs to enhance the test suites and use their behavior similarity to determine patch correctness. Our approach is evaluated on a dataset consisting of 139 patches generated from existing program repair systems including jGenProg, Nopol, jKali, ACS and HDRepair. Our approach successfully prevented 56.3% of the incorrect patches to be generated, without blocking any correct patches.

Key facts. Cited by 17 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 28 Jun 2017.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2021: 2; 2022: 1; 2023: 3; 2024: 0; 2025: 3; 2026: 8.

17 papers.

Sort:

By area:

  1. 2025Evaluating Agent-based Program Repair at Googlecited by 35
  2. 2025Understanding Automated Program Repair Agents Through the Lens of Traceability: An Empirical Studycited by 16
  3. 2023Towards Generating Functionally Correct Code Edits from Natural Language Issue Descriptionscited by 14
  4. 2023Invalidator: Automated Patch Correctness Assessment via Semantic and Syntactic Reasoningcited by 11
  5. 2023RunBugRun -- An Executable Dataset for Automated Program Repaircited by 11
  6. 2022Is this Change the Answer to that Problem? Correlating Descriptions of Bug and Code Changes for Evaluating Patch Correctnesscited by 7
  7. 2021Predicting Patch Correctness Based on the Similarity of Failing Test Casescited by 4
  8. 2026ExecCritic: Learn to Test, Test to Improve for Coding Agentscited by 3
  9. 2026PatchBench: Evaluating AI Agents for Vulnerability Patchingcited by 2
  10. 2025RePaCA: Leveraging Reasoning Large Language Models for Static Automated Patch Correctness Assessmentcited by 1
  11. 2026Coupling Planning with Episodic Memory in LLM Agents for Software Issue Resolutioncited by 1
  12. 2026BenchShield: Formal Model-Backed Instrumentation for Reward Integrity in LLM-Agent Evaluation Infrastructurecited by 1
5 more
  1. 2026Groundability, Not Scale Alone: When Weak Reviewers Can Audit Strong Coding Agentscited by 1
  2. 2021Exploring Plausible Patches Using Source Code Embeddings in JavaScriptcited by 0
  3. 2026Understanding Agent-Based Patching of Compiler Missed Optimizationscited by 0
  4. 2026From Approval to Execution: Reconstruction-Aware Repair Analysis for LLM-Agent Softwarecited by 0
  5. 2026P2Patch: Exploit-Guided Vulnerability Repaircited by 0