Repair Ingredients Are All You Need: Improving Large Language Model-Based Program Repair via Repair Ingredients Search
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Automated Program Repair (APR) techniques aim to automatically fix buggy programs. Among these, Large Language Model-based (LLM-based) approaches have shown great promise. Recent advances demonstrate that directly leveraging LLMs can achieve leading results. However, these techniques remain suboptimal in generating contextually relevant and accurate patches, as they often overlook repair ingredients crucial for practical program repair. In this paper, we propose ReinFix, a novel framework that enables LLMs to autonomously search for repair ingredients throughout both the reasoning and solution phases of bug fixing. In the reasoning phase, ReinFix integrates static analysis tools to retrieve internal ingredients, such as variable definitions, to assist the LLM in root cause analysis when it encounters difficulty understanding the context. During the solution phase, when the LLM lacks experience in fixing specific bugs, ReinFix searches for external ingredients from historical bug fixes with similar bug patterns, leveraging both the buggy code and its root cause to guide the LLM in identifying appropriate repair actions, thereby increasing the likelihood of generating correct patches. Evaluations on two popular benchmarks (Defects4J V1.2 and V2.0) demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach over SOTA baselines. Notably, ReinFix fixes 146 bugs, which is 32 more than the baselines on Defects4J V1.2. On Defects4J V2.0, ReinFix fixes 38 more bugs than the SOTA. Importantly, when evaluating on the recent benchmarks that are free of data leakage risk, ReinFix also maintains the best performance.
Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 29 Jun 2025.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 7.
8 papers.
- 2025DynaFix: Iterative Automated Program Repair Driven by Execution-Level Dynamic Informationcited by 3
- 2026From Historical Patches to Repair Plans: Outcome-Conditioned Reasoning for Repository-Level Program Repaircited by 3
- 2026Learning When to Remember: Risk-Sensitive Contextual Bandits for Abstention-Aware Memory Retrieval in LLM-Based Coding Agentscited by 3
- 2026VulnResolver: A Hybrid Agent Framework for LLM-Based Automated Vulnerability Issue Resolutioncited by 2
- 2026Multi-Perspective Agentic Program Repair via Code Property Graphs and Temporal Execution Graphscited by 1
- 2026MemRepair: Hierarchical Memory for Agentic Repository-Level Vulnerability Repaircited by 0
- 2026Beyond Textual Repository Exploration: Dual-Modal Structural Reasoning for Agentic Issue Resolutioncited by 0
- 2026Benchmarking Automated Security Patch Backporting: How Far Are We?cited by 0
- 2026Benchmarking Automated Security Patch Backporting: How Far Are We?18 Aug 2026
- 2026Multi-Perspective Agentic Program Repair via Code Property Graphs and Temporal Execution Graphs14 Jul 2026
- 2026Beyond Textual Repository Exploration: Dual-Modal Structural Reasoning for Agentic Issue Resolution2 Jul 2026
- 2026MemRepair: Hierarchical Memory for Agentic Repository-Level Vulnerability Repair17 May 2026
- 2026Learning When to Remember: Risk-Sensitive Contextual Bandits for Abstention-Aware Memory Retrieval in LLM-Based Coding Agents30 Apr 2026
- 2026From Historical Patches to Repair Plans: Outcome-Conditioned Reasoning for Repository-Level Program Repair30 Jan 2026
- 2026VulnResolver: A Hybrid Agent Framework for LLM-Based Automated Vulnerability Issue Resolution20 Jan 2026
- 2025DynaFix: Iterative Automated Program Repair Driven by Execution-Level Dynamic Information31 Dec 2025