Automated Program Repair (APR) has recently benefited from Large Language Models (LLMs), yet their effectiveness heavily depends on repair context. Existing LLM-based APR methods suffer from a causality gap: test contexts can be noisy or incomplete, while source contexts derived from static analysis often contain irrelevant and unexecuted code, misleading LLMs from identifying the true root cause. To address this issue, we propose CausalRepair, a conversation-driven APR framework based on minimal causal context, i.e., the essential dependencies required to explain a failure. CausalRepair employs a dual-slicing strategy: context-aware static slicing purifies test semantics, while execution-trace-based dynamic slicing captures precise runtime dependencies in source code. Together, they construct compact, causally relevant contexts to guide iterative repair. We evaluate CausalRepair on Defects4J V1.2, V2.0, and Defects4J-Trans using DeepSeek-V3. CausalRepair correctly fixes 313 bugs on Defects4J, outperforming state-of-the-art approaches such as ReinFix and TSAPR, while reducing the average repair cost to $0.029 per bug.
Linhao Wu, Yizhou Chen, Zhenyu Yang et al.· 0 citations
Although coding agents have achieved impressive performance on correctness-oriented benchmarks, their ability to make behavior-preserving non-functional improvements (NFIs) remains underexplored. In real-world software development, developers continuously improve software quality without changing observable behavior, yet existing benchmarks primarily evaluate functional correctness and provide limited support for assessing these non-functional improvements. In this paper, we present SWE-NFI, a benchmark for evaluating coding agents on NFIs beyond functional correctness. Our benchmark contains 188 tasks constructed from real merged pull requests in open-source Python projects. We operationalize developer-oriented NFIs into 92 executable rules and develop a comprehensive evaluation suite that combines functional correctness testing with rule-based NFI evaluation. We evaluate state-of-the-art commercial and open-source coding agents. Although the best-performing agent achieves a 70.0\% functional correctness rate, all evaluated agents generally fall short of human developers in overall NFI capability. The gap is particularly evident for structural code improvements, where agents'NFI scores range from 0.0 to 1.3, compared with 1.5 for the human reference. Our benchmark and findings provide a reproducible foundation for evaluating and advancing coding agents beyond functional correctness.
Pengyu Xue, Hengchen Yuan, Xin Wang et al.· 0 citations