Learning-based program repair has achieved good results in a recent series of papers. Yet, we observe that the related work fails to repair some bugs because of a lack of knowledge about 1) the application domain of the program being repaired, and 2) the fault type being repaired. In this paper, we solve both problems by changing the learning paradigm from supervised training to self-supervised training in an approach called SelfAPR. First, SelfAPR generates training samples on disk by perturbing a previous version of the program being repaired, enforcing the neural model to capture project-specific knowledge. This is different from the previous work based on mined past commits. Second, SelfAPR executes all training samples and extracts and encodes test execution diagnostics into the input representation, steering the neural model to fix the kind of fault. This is different from the existing studies that only consider static source code as input. We implement SelfAPR and evaluate it in a systematic manner. We generate 1 039 873 training samples obtained by perturbing 17 open-source projects. We evaluate SelfAPR on 818 bugs from Defects4J, SelfAPR correctly repairs 110 of them, outperforming all the supervised learning repair approaches.

Neural machine translation (NMT) architectures have achieved promising results for automatic program repair. Yet, they have the limitation of generating low-quality patches (e.g., not compilable patches). This is because the existing works only optimize a purely syntactic loss function based on characters and tokens without incorporating program-specific information during neural network weight optimization. In this paper, we propose a novel program repair model called RewardRepair. The core novelty of RewardRepair is to improve NMT-based program repair with a loss function based on program compilation and test execution information, rewarding the network to produce patches that compile and that do not overfit. We conduct several experiments to evaluate RewardRepair showing that it is feasible and effective to use compilation and test execution results to optimize the underlying neural repair model. RewardRepair correctly repairs 207 bugs over four benchmarks. we report on repair success for 121 bugs that are fixed for the first time in the literature. Also, RewardRepair produces up to 45.3% of compilable patches, an improvement over the 39% by the state-of-the-art.

Automatic program repair (APR) aims to reduce the cost of manually fixing software defects. However, APR suffers from generating a multitude of overfitting patches, those patches that fail to correctly repair the defect beyond making the tests pass. This paper presents a novel overfitting patch detection system called ODS to assess the correctness of APR patches. ODS first statically compares a patched program and a buggy program in order to extract code features at the abstract syntax tree (AST) level. Then, ODS uses supervised learning with the captured code features and patch correctness labels to automatically learn a probabilistic model. The learned ODS model can then finally be applied to classify new and unseen program repair patches. We conduct a large-scale experiment to evaluate the effectiveness of ODS on patch correctness classification based on 10,302 patches from Defects4J, Bugs.jar and Bears benchmarks. The empirical evaluation shows that ODS is able to correctly classify 71.9% of program repair patches from 26 projects, which improves the state-of-the-art. ODS is applicable in practice and can be employed as a post-processing procedure to classify the patches generated by different APR systems. 

In this paper, we do automatic correctness assessment for patches generated by program repair systems. We consider the human-written patch as ground truth oracle and randomly generate tests based on it, a technique proposed by Shamshiri et al., called Random testing with Ground Truth (RGT) in this paper. We build a curated dataset of 638 patches for Defects4J generated by 14 state-of-the-art repair systems, we evaluate automated patch assessment on this dataset. The results of this study are novel and significant: First, we improve the state of the art performance of automatic patch assessment with RGT by 190% by improving the oracle; Second, we show that RGT is reliable enough to help scientists to do overfitting analysis when they evaluate program repair systems; Third, we improve the external validity of the program repair knowledge with the largest study ever.

Automatic program repair papers tend to repeatedly use the same benchmarks. This poses a threat to the external validity of the findings of the program repair research community. In this paper, we perform an automatic repair experiment on a benchmark called QuixBugs that has been recently published. This benchmark has never been studied in the context of program repair. In this study, we report on the characteristics of QuixBugs, and we design and perform an experiment about the effectiveness of test-suite based program repair on QuixBugs. We study two repair systems, Astor and Nopol, which are representatives of generate-and-validate repair technique and synthesis repair technique respectively. We propose three patch correctness assessment techniques to comprehensively study overfitting and incorrect patches. Our key results are: 1) 13/40 buggy programs in the QuixBugs can be repaired with a test-suite adequate patch; 2) a total of 22 different plausible patches for those 13 buggy programs in the QuixBugs are present in the search space of the considered tools; 3) the three patch assessment techniques discard in total 12/22 patches that are overfitting. This sets a baseline for future research of automatic repair on QuixBugs. Our experiment also highlights the major properties and challenges of how to perform automated correctness assessment of program repair patches. All experimental results are publicly available on Github in order to facilitate future research on automatic program repair.