Hierarchical Knowledge Injection for Improving LLM-based Program Repair
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Prompting LLMs with bug-related context (e.g., error messages, stack traces) improves automated program repair, but many bugs still remain unresolved. In real-world projects, developers often rely on broader repository and project-level context beyond the local code to resolve such bugs. In this paper, we investigate how automatically extracting and providing such knowledge can improve LLM-based program repair. We propose a layered knowledge injection framework that incrementally augments LLMs with structured context. It starts with the Bug Knowledge Layer, which includes information such as the buggy function and failing tests; expands to the Repository Knowledge Layer, which adds structural dependencies, related files, and commit history; and finally injects the Project Knowledge Layer, which incorporates relevant details from documentation and previously fixed bugs. We evaluate this framework on a dataset of 314 bugs from BugsInPy using two LLMs (Llama 3.3 and GPT-4o-mini), and analyze fix rates across six bug types. By progressively injecting knowledge across layers, our approach achieves a fix rate of 79% (250/314) using Llama 3.3, a significant improvement of 23% over previous work. All bug types show improvement with the addition of repository-level context, while only a subset benefit further from project-level knowledge, highlighting that different bug types require different levels of contextual information for effective repair. We also analyze the remaining unresolved bugs and find that more complex and structurally isolated bugs, such as Program Anomaly and GUI bugs, remain difficult even after injecting all available information. Our results show that layered context injection improves program repair and suggest the need for interactive and adaptive APR systems.
Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 30 Jun 2025.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 5.
6 papers.
- 2026Where Do AI Coding Agents Fail? An Empirical Study of Failed Agentic Pull Requests in GitHubcited by 13
- 2025HAFixAgent: History-Aware Program Repair Agentcited by 3
- 2026TraceView: Interactive Visualization of Agentic Program Repair Trajectoriescited by 2
- 2026RepoProbe: Benchmarking Architecture-Aware Repository Comprehension with Checklistscited by 2
- 2026How Do LLMs Read Bug Reports? An Empirical Study of Attention in LLMs for Automated Program Repaircited by 0
- 2026CIT-CAD: Constraint Intent Tree-based CAD Code Generation and Verificationcited by 0
- 2026CIT-CAD: Constraint Intent Tree-based CAD Code Generation and Verification7 Sep 2026
- 2026RepoProbe: Benchmarking Architecture-Aware Repository Comprehension with Checklists5 Aug 2026
- 2026How Do LLMs Read Bug Reports? An Empirical Study of Attention in LLMs for Automated Program Repair28 Jul 2026
- 2026TraceView: Interactive Visualization of Agentic Program Repair Trajectories20 Jun 2026
- 2026Where Do AI Coding Agents Fail? An Empirical Study of Failed Agentic Pull Requests in GitHub21 Jan 2026
- 2025HAFixAgent: History-Aware Program Repair Agent2 Nov 2025