Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Published: |
2025
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.15135 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866918128249733120 |
|---|---|
| author | Liyanage, Sumudu Licorish, Sherlock A. Wagner, Markus MacDonell, Stephen G. |
| author_facet | Liyanage, Sumudu Licorish, Sherlock A. Wagner, Markus MacDonell, Stephen G. |
| contents | In supporting the development of high-quality software, especially necessary in the era of LLMs, automated program repair (APR) tools aim to improve code quality by automatically addressing violations detected by static analysis profilers. Previous research tends to evaluate APR tools only for their ability to clear violations, neglecting their potential introduction of new (sometimes severe) violations, changes to code functionality and degrading of code structure. There is thus a need for research to develop and assess comprehensive evaluation frameworks for APR tools. This study addresses this research gap, and evaluates Sorald (a state-of-the-art APR tool) as a proof of concept. Sorald's effectiveness was evaluated in repairing 3,529 SonarQube violations across 30 rules within 2,393 Java code snippets extracted from Stack Overflow. Outcomes show that while Sorald fixes specific rule violations, it introduced 2,120 new faults (32 bugs, 2088 code smells), reduced code functional correctness--as evidenced by a 24% unit test failure rate--and degraded code structure, demonstrating the utility of our framework. Findings emphasize the need for evaluation methodologies that capture the full spectrum of APR tool effects, including side effects, to ensure their safe and effective adoption. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2508_15135 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | On the need to perform comprehensive evaluations of automated program repair benchmarks: Sorald case study Liyanage, Sumudu Licorish, Sherlock A. Wagner, Markus MacDonell, Stephen G. Software Engineering In supporting the development of high-quality software, especially necessary in the era of LLMs, automated program repair (APR) tools aim to improve code quality by automatically addressing violations detected by static analysis profilers. Previous research tends to evaluate APR tools only for their ability to clear violations, neglecting their potential introduction of new (sometimes severe) violations, changes to code functionality and degrading of code structure. There is thus a need for research to develop and assess comprehensive evaluation frameworks for APR tools. This study addresses this research gap, and evaluates Sorald (a state-of-the-art APR tool) as a proof of concept. Sorald's effectiveness was evaluated in repairing 3,529 SonarQube violations across 30 rules within 2,393 Java code snippets extracted from Stack Overflow. Outcomes show that while Sorald fixes specific rule violations, it introduced 2,120 new faults (32 bugs, 2088 code smells), reduced code functional correctness--as evidenced by a 24% unit test failure rate--and degraded code structure, demonstrating the utility of our framework. Findings emphasize the need for evaluation methodologies that capture the full spectrum of APR tool effects, including side effects, to ensure their safe and effective adoption. |
| title | On the need to perform comprehensive evaluations of automated program repair benchmarks: Sorald case study |
| topic | Software Engineering |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.15135 |