Accepted Paper by ACM TOSEM

I am excited to share that my first-authored paper on natural robustness of Code LLMs in Program Repair has been accepted by ACM Transaction on Software Engineering and Methodology.

Prior research often underestimates the robustness of Code LLMs due to reliance on unnatural code transformations in evaluation. To address this, we introduce human-validated criteria and a naturalness metric, demonstrating that many transformations lack real-world relevance and distort assessments of Code LLM effectiveness in program repair. Nevertheless, our re-examination of natural robustness shows that Code LLMs remain unrobust in program repair, with substantial performance declines on naturally occurring variants.

Abstract

Automated program repair (APR) has recently gained ground, with numerous research efforts being conducted in the area that have been adopted in the industry. One notable class of APR is neural program repair (NPR), which typically employs deep learning techniques that are trained on vast amounts of historical data to fix bugs that have not been seen in the past. To study the true effectiveness of NPR on existing limited datasets, recent work augments the evaluation data by employing semantics-preserving transformations to convert original buggy programs to semantically equivalent ones. Experiments show that NPR techniques are not robust; e.g., NPR cannot repair semantically equivalent counterparts of 20%–35% of bugs that they can repair in the original dataset. However, we found that many of these transformations are unnatural, that are unlikely to occur in real-world scenarios, leading to misleading conclusions about NPR effectiveness and misguide the improvement on unrobust behaviors, which have minimal real-world impact.

In this paper, we propose shifting the focus of robustness evaluation for NPR techniques towards naturally occurring data transformations. To accomplish this, we first examine the naturalness of semantic-preserving transformations through a two-stage human study. This study includes: (i) interviews with senior software developers to establish concrete criteria for evaluating the naturalness of these transformations and (ii) a survey involving 10 developers to assess the naturalness of 1,178 transformations, i.e., pairs of original and transformed programs, applied to 225 real-world bugs. Our findings show that only 60% of these transformations are considered natural, while 20% are considered unnatural, with strong agreement among the annotators. Moreover, the unnaturalness of these transformations significantly impacts both their applicability to benchmarks and the conclusions drawn from robustness testing. Next, we conduct natural robustness tests on NPR techniques to assess their true effectiveness against real-world data variations.

Our experimental results reveal a substantial number of prediction changes in NPR techniques, leading to significant reductions in both plausible and correct patch rates when comparing performance on the original and transformed datasets. Furthermore, we observe notable differences in performance improvements between NPR techniques, suggesting potential biases in the evaluation of NPR introduced by limited datasets. Finally, we explore automating the assessment of transformation naturalness by developing a new naturalness metric, namely RNC, using large language models. This metric effectively evaluates naturalness with an AUC of 0.7, offering a promising direction for automating the naturalness assessment of code transformations.