mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

AVATAR : Fixing Semantic Bugs with Fix Patterns of Static Analysis Violations

arXiv 1812.07270 ↗First posted 18 Dec 2018cs.SEcited by 22

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Fix pattern-based patch generation is a promising direction in Automated Program Repair (APR). Notably, it has been demonstrated to produce more acceptable and correct patches than the patches obtained with mutation operators through genetic programming. The performance of pattern-based APR systems, however, depends on the fix ingredients mined from fix changes in development histories. Unfortunately, collecting a reliable set of bug fixes in repositories can be challenging. In this paper, we propose to investigate the possibility in an APR scenario of leveraging code changes that address violations by static bug detection tools. To that end, we build the AVATAR APR system, which exploits fix patterns of static analysis violations as ingredients for patch generation. Evaluated on the Defects4J benchmark, we show that, assuming a perfect localization of faults, AVATAR can generate correct patches to fix 34/39 bugs. We further find that AVATAR yields performance metrics that are comparable to that of the closely-related approaches in the literature. While AVATAR outperforms many of the state-of-the-art pattern-based APR systems, it is mostly complementary to current approaches. Overall, our study highlights the relevance of static bug finding tools as indirect contributors of fix ingredients for addressing code defects identified with functional test cases.

Key facts. Cited by 22 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 18 Dec 2018.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2021: 3; 2022: 1; 2023: 5; 2024: 7; 2025: 4; 2026: 2.

22 papers.

Sort:

By area:

  1. 2023Keep the Conversation Going: Fixing 162 out of 337 bugs for 0.42 each using ChatGPTcited by 125
  2. 2024CodeR: Issue Resolving with Multi-Agent and Task Graphscited by 89
  3. 2021CURE: Code-Aware Neural Machine Translation for Automatic Program Repaircited by 85
  4. 2021A Syntax-Guided Edit Decoder for Neural Program Repaircited by 57
  5. 2024From Code to Correctness: Closing the Last Mile of Code Generation with Hierarchical Debuggingcited by 46
  6. 2024Rectifier: Code Translation with Corrector via LLMscited by 20
  7. 2023Invalidator: Automated Patch Correctness Assessment via Semantic and Syntactic Reasoningcited by 11
  8. 2022Is this Change the Answer to that Problem? Correlating Descriptions of Bug and Code Changes for Evaluating Patch Correctnesscited by 7
  9. 2023Revisiting the Plastic Surgery Hypothesis via Large Language Modelscited by 7
  10. 2024Can GPT-O1 Kill All Bugs? An Evaluation of GPT-Family LLMs on QuixBugscited by 7
  11. 2024TransAgent: Enhancing LLM-Based Code Translation via Fine-Grained Execution Alignmentcited by 7
  12. 2025The Art of Repair: Optimizing Iterative Program Repair with Instruction-Tuned Modelscited by 7
10 more
  1. 2023Automating the Correctness Assessment of AI-generated Code for Security Contextscited by 6
  2. 2023Frustrated with Code Quality Issues? LLMs can Help!cited by 5
  3. 2025PredicateFix: Repairing Static Analysis Alerts with Bridging Predicatescited by 5
  4. 2021Predicting Patch Correctness Based on the Similarity of Failing Test Casescited by 4
  5. 2025The Impact of Fine-tuning Large Language Models on Automated Program Repaircited by 3
  6. 2025DynaFix: Iterative Automated Program Repair Driven by Execution-Level Dynamic Informationcited by 3
  7. 2024LecPrompt: A Prompt-based Approach for Logical Error Correction with CodeBERTcited by 2
  8. 2026RAVEN: Agentic RAG for Automated Vulnerability Repaircited by 1
  9. 2024NARRepair: Non-Autoregressive Code Generation Model for Automatic Program Repaircited by 0
  10. 2026AssumptionMiner: Extracting, Tracing, and Revising Implicit Assumptions in LLM Code Generationcited by 0