Abstain and Validate: A Dual-LLM Policy for Reducing Noise in Agentic Program Repair
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents
Abstract (arXiv)
Agentic Automated Program Repair (APR) is increasingly tackling complex, repository-level bugs in industry, but ultimately these patches still need to be reviewed by a human before committing them to ensure they address the bug. Showing patches unlikely to be accepted can lead to substantial noise, wasting valuable developer time and eroding trust in automated code changes. We introduce two complementary LLM-based policies to reduce such noise: bug abstention and patch validation policies. Bug abstention excludes bugs that the agentic APR system is unlikely to fix. Patch validation rejects patches that are unlikely to be a good fix for the given bug. We evaluate both policies on three sets of bugs from Google's codebase, and their candidate patches generated by an internal agentic APR system. On a set of 174 human-reported bugs, removing bugs and patches rejected by our policies can raise success rates by up to 13 percentage points and 15 percentage points, respectively, and by up to 39 percentage points in combination. On null pointer exceptions and sanitizer-reported bugs with machine-generated bug reports, patch validation also improves average single-sample success rates. This two-policy approach provides a practical path to the reliable, industrial-scale deployment of agentic APR systems.
Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 21 of its 51 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 Oct 2025.
Builds on
21 of 51 references.
Closest ancestors · 9
Same direction, newest first
- 2025Trae Agent: An LLM-based Agent for Software Engineering with Test-time Scaling31 Jul
- 2025AutoCodeSherpa: Symbolic Explanations in AI Coding Agents30 Jul
- 2025Agentic Program Repair from Test Failures at Scale: A Neuro-symbolic approach with static analysis and test execution feedback24 Jul
- 2025Evaluating Agent-based Program Repair at Google13 Jan
- 2024Training Software Engineering Agents and Verifiers with SWE-Gym30 Dec
- 2024SpecRover: Code Intent Extraction via LLMs5 Aug
- 2024Agentless: Demystifying LLM-based Software Engineering Agents1 Jul
- 2024SWE-agent: Agent-Computer Interfaces Enable Automated Software Engineering6 May
- 2024RepairAgent: An Autonomous, LLM-Based Agent for Program Repair25 Mar
Other references · 12
- 2025Gemini 2.5: Pushing the Frontier with Advanced Reasoning, Multimodality, Long Context, and Next Generation Agentic Capabilitiescited by 3,655
- 2021PICARD: Parsing Incrementally for Constrained Auto-Regressive Decoding from Language Modelscited by 402
- 2024AutoCodeRover: Autonomous Program Improvementcited by 272
- 2024Agent-as-a-Judge: Evaluate Agents with Agentscited by 223
- 2024Know Your Limits: A Survey of Abstention in Large Language Modelscited by 116
- 2024CodeJudge: Evaluating Code Generation with Large Language Modelscited by 41
- 2023How are Prompts Different in Terms of Sensitivity?cited by 34
- 2021Classification with abstention but without disparitiescited by 27
- 2021Trust Enhancement Issues in Program Repaircited by 22
- 2025On the Effectiveness of LLM-as-a-judge for Code Generation and Summarizationcited by 17
- 2024Prompting in the Wild: An Empirical Study of Prompt Evolution in Software Repositoriescited by 16
- 2025Is Your Automated Software Engineer Trustworthy?cited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 5.
5 papers.
- 2026Dynamic Cogeneration of Bug Reproduction Test in Agentic Program Repaircited by 6
- 2026Coding Agents Don't Know When to Actcited by 4
- 2026EviACT: An Evidence-to-Action Framework for Agentic Program Repaircited by 3
- 2026Project Prometheus: Bridging the Intent Gap in Agentic Program Repair via Reverse-Engineered Executable Specificationscited by 0
- 2026What Can Component-Replacement Evidence Establish? A Critical Scoping Review of Local Decisions in LLM Agentscited by 0
- 2026What Can Component-Replacement Evidence Establish? A Critical Scoping Review of Local Decisions in LLM Agents30 Sep 2026
- 2026EviACT: An Evidence-to-Action Framework for Agentic Program Repair26 May 2026
- 2026Coding Agents Don't Know When to Act8 May 2026
- 2026Project Prometheus: Bridging the Intent Gap in Agentic Program Repair via Reverse-Engineered Executable Specifications19 Apr 2026
- 2026Dynamic Cogeneration of Bug Reproduction Test in Agentic Program Repair27 Jan 2026
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026SmellBench: Evaluating LLM Agents on Architectural Code Smell Repair
- 2024An Empirical Study on LLM-based Agents for Automated Bug Fixing
- 2025How Safe Are AI-Generated Patches? A Large-scale Study on Security Risks in LLM and Agentic Automated Program Repair on SWE-bench
- 2025Understanding Automated Program Repair Agents Through the Lens of Traceability: An Empirical Study
- 2025Self-Bootstrapping Automated Program Repair: Using LLMs to Generate and Evaluate Synthetic Training Data for Bug Repair
- 2025The Art of Repair: Optimizing Iterative Program Repair with Instruction-Tuned Models
- 2026Refine After Generation: Toward Correct and Concise Patches in LLM-based Program Repair
- 2026When Passing Tests Hides Vulnerabilities: An Empirical Study of Silent Failures in Agentic Systems