mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Agentic Bug Reproduction for Effective Automated Program Repair at Google

arXiv 2502.01821 ↗First posted 3 Feb 2025cs.SE cs.AIcited by 22

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents

Abstract (arXiv)

Bug reports often lack sufficient detail for developers to reproduce and fix the underlying defects. Bug Reproduction Tests (BRTs), tests that fail when the bug is present and pass when it has been resolved, are crucial for debugging, but they are rarely included in bug reports, both in open-source and in industrial settings. Thus, automatically generating BRTs from bug reports has the potential to accelerate the debugging process and lower time to repair. This paper investigates automated BRT generation within an industry setting, specifically at Google, focusing on the challenges of a large-scale, proprietary codebase and considering real-world industry bugs extracted from Google's internal issue tracker. We adapt and evaluate a state-of-the-art BRT generation technique, LIBRO, and present our agent-based approach, BRT Agent, which makes use of a fine-tuned Large Language Model (LLM) for code editing. Our BRT Agent significantly outperforms LIBRO, achieving a 28% plausible BRT generation rate, compared to 10% by LIBRO, on 80 human-reported bugs from Google's internal issue tracker. We further investigate the practical value of generated BRTs by integrating them with an Automated Program Repair (APR) system at Google. Our results show that providing BRTs to the APR system results in 30% more bugs with plausible fixes. Additionally, we introduce Ensemble Pass Rate (EPR), a metric which leverages the generated BRTs to select the most promising fixes from all fixes generated by APR system. Our evaluation on EPR for Top-K and threshold-based fix selections demonstrates promising results and trade-offs. For example, EPR correctly selects a plausible fix from a pool of 20 candidates in 70% of cases, based on its top-1 ranking.

Key facts. Cited by 22 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 20 of its 46 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 Feb 2025.

Builds on

20 of 46 references.

Closest ancestors · 2

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025Evaluating Agent-based Program Repair at Google13 Jan
  2. 2024SWT-Bench: Testing and Validating Real-World Bug-Fixes with Code Agents18 Jun

Other references · 18

  1. 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,695
  2. 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
  3. 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,320
  4. 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,373
  5. 2024SWE-bench Multimodal: Do AI Systems Generalize to Visual Software Domains?cited by 203
  6. 2023An Empirical Evaluation of Using Large Language Models for Automated Unit Test Generationcited by 194
  7. 2022Large Language Models are Few-shot Testers: Exploring LLM-based General Bug Reproductioncited by 111
  8. 2023ChatUniTest: A Framework for LLM-Based Test Generationcited by 96
  9. 2024CodeR: Issue Resolving with Multi-Agent and Task Graphscited by 91
  10. 2023Impact of Code Language Models on Automated Program Repaircited by 85
  11. 2023No More Manual Tests? Evaluating and Improving ChatGPT for Unit Test Generationcited by 82
  12. 2023Large Language Models for Test-Free Fault Localizationcited by 67
6 more
  1. 2024AgentFL: Scaling LLM-based Fault Localization to Project-Level Contextcited by 47
  2. 2024TDD-Bench Verified: Can LLMs Generate Tests for Issues Before They Get Resolved?cited by 34
  3. 2023Nuances are the Key: Unlocking ChatGPT to Find Failure-Inducing Tests with Differential Promptingcited by 23
  4. 2021Elixir: Effective object-oriented program repaircited by 16
  5. 2016Precise Condition Synthesis for Program Repaircited by 13
  6. 2019Assessing the Quality of the Steps to Reproduce in Bug Reportscited by 13

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 10; 2026: 12.

22 papers.

Sort:

By area:

  1. 2025Understanding Software Engineering Agents: A Study of Thought-Action-Result Trajectoriescited by 81
  2. 2025From Code Foundation Models to Agents and Applications: A Comprehensive Survey and Practical Guide to Code Intelligencecited by 15
  3. 2025Seeing is Fixing: Cross-Modal Reasoning with Multimodal LLMs for Visual Software Issue Fixingcited by 12
  4. 2025The Rise of AI Teammates in Software Engineering (SE) 3.0: How Autonomous Coding Agents Are Reshaping Software Engineeringcited by 9
  5. 2026AgentStepper: Interactive Debugging of Software Development Agentscited by 9
  6. 2025Agentic Program Repair from Test Failures at Scale: A Neuro-symbolic approach with static analysis and test execution feedbackcited by 6
  7. 2025Agentic Software Issue Resolution with Large Language Models: A Surveycited by 6
  8. 2026Dynamic Cogeneration of Bug Reproduction Test in Agentic Program Repaircited by 6
  9. 2026SWE-Doctor: Guiding Software Engineering Agents with Runtime Diagnosis from Multi-Faceted Bug Reproduction Testscited by 5
  10. 2025Past, Present, and Future of Bug Tracking in the Generative AI Eracited by 4
  11. 2026Execution-State-Aware LLM Reasoning for Automated Proof-of-Vulnerability Generationcited by 3
  12. 2026ExecCritic: Learn to Test, Test to Improve for Coding Agentscited by 3
10 more
  1. 2025LinkAnchor: An Autonomous LLM-Based Agent for Issue-to-Commit Link Recoverycited by 2
  2. 2025Beyond Accuracy: Behavioral Dynamics of Agentic Multi-Hunk Repaircited by 2
  3. 2026EvoOtter: Evolutionary Reproduction Test Generatorcited by 1
  4. 2025Agentic Reinforcement Learning for Real-World Code Repaircited by 0
  5. 2026Evaluating LLM Agents on Automated Software Analysis Taskscited by 0
  6. 2026DPIAgent: Divide, Protocol, Isolate for Agentic Reproduction Test Generationcited by 0
  7. 2026Better Understanding, Better Fixes? A Study of Hallucination in LLM-based Automated Program Repaircited by 0
  8. 2026WitnessGym: Benchmarking Coding Agents on the Construction of Bug Witnessescited by 0
  9. 2026Can LLMs Fix It Without Code? Toward Automated Verification of No-Code Bug Fixescited by 0
  10. 2026SWEPatchTest: Evaluating Software Tests Beyond Reproductioncited by 0

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026ReProAgent: Tool-Augmented Multi-Stage Agentic Generation of Bug Reproduction Tests from Issue Reports
  2. 2026From Bug Reports to Browser-Executable Procedures: An LLM-Driven Agent for Web GUI Bug Reproduction ↗
  3. 2025Can Old Tests Do New Tricks for Resolving SWE Issues?
  4. 2025Abstain and Validate: A Dual-LLM Policy for Reducing Noise in Agentic Program Repair
  5. 2026AnyPoC: Universal Proof-of-Concept Test Generation for Scalable LLM-Based Bug Detection
  6. 2025Understanding Automated Program Repair Agents Through the Lens of Traceability: An Empirical Study
  7. 2024An Empirical Study on LLM-based Agents for Automated Bug Fixing
  8. 2026Catching Developers in the Flow: Low-Latency Agentic Program Repair at Google Scale