Skip to content
Book Open access

Toward Trace-Guided Automated Program Repair

Oct 2026 · Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on PromptOps and Vibe Coding · pp. 1-8 · 0 citations · 69 references

TL;DR

The concept of an APR approach that is guided by tracing data and which is therefore capable of fixing bugs in huge codebases is described and a proof of concept is shown that in the bug dataset defects4j, location information achieves an absolute increase of up to 22.4 % in fixed bugs with Gemma-4-31B compared to a baseline without location information.

Abstract

Fixing bugs is a time-consuming task. Researchers and developers hence aim to automate program repair (APR) as much as possible. Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) made automated fixing of bugs widely accessible to practitioners. However, while LLMs are in principle capable of generating code and fixing programs, their ability to locate and therefore effectively fix bugs is limited by their context length. To guide them towards the parts of the program that require fixing, LLMs could be prompted with information from dynamic analysis techniques. We expect that the most efficient way to help LLMs debug code is by providing the LLM with information to interactively find the bug location. To do so, we propose two steps: Tailoring the prompt with trace information and giving the LLM a tool call to get further trace information. This trace information needs to be preprocessed in a way that it can be efficiently used by the LLM and makes it possible to understand the program behavior. In this paper, we describe our concept of an APR approach that is guided by tracing data and which is therefore capable of fixing bugs in huge codebases. As a proof of concept, we show that in the bug dataset defects4j, location information achieves an absolute increase of up to 22.4 % in fixed bugs with Gemma-4-31B compared to a baseline without location information. Based on our concept and our proof of concept, we outline the research agenda that is necessary to enable trace-guided APR.

Read PDF

Similar papers

If It's Not Buggy, Don't Fix It: On the Dynamics of Iterative Bug-fixing with LLMs

This report explores the iterative blind use of LLMs as bug-fixers, and unveils the existence of a steering vector which controls the editing propensity, suggesting that LLMs have an internal representation of ``buggy code", and that this representation is what is falsely activated to induce pseudo-bug fixing.

Xietao Wang-Lin, Anton Isopoussu, Louis Mahon · 0 citations
Open access Sep 2026

Goanna: a novel approach for automated type error debugging

Goanna is introduced, a novel type checker for Haskell that focuses on improving error diagnostics, and shows performance constraints when diagnosing large programs containing complex errors, but remains responsive enough to provide real-time debugging assistance for small to medium-sized programs.

Shuai Fu, Tim Dwyer, Peter James Stuckey et al. · 0 citations
Open access 2026

Fault Localization Using LLMs With Line-by-Line Program Execution Traces

Fault localization (FL) is a fundamental process for identifying the root causes of software bugs. Although existing methods demonstrate that integrating static code with dynamic runtime information improves accuracy, a limitation remains. Although omniscient debugging tools provide fine-grained, line-level execution t...

Takafumi Sakura, Ryo Soga, Hideyuki Kanuka et al. · 0 citations
Open access Oct 2026

Automated Program Repair for UI-Centric Android Bugs: How Far Are We?

Substantial research effort has been devoted to developing techniques for automated program repair (APR) that suggest patches for localized buggy code -- and more recent techniques have begun to leverage the capabilities of code-centric large language models (LLMs). However, the scope and diversity of bugs to which the...

Junayed Mahmud, Sparsh Pandey, N. De Silva et al. · 0 citations
Open access Oct 2026

Enhancing LLM-Based Bug Reproduction via Code Entity Retrieval and Test Case Repair

Experimental results on the widely-used Defects4J benchmark show that LTER substantially outperforms the best performance in automated bug reproduction, increasing the reproduction success rate to 46.2% with successfully identifying a valid reproduction test as the top candidate in 38.1% of the cases.

Hao Ding, Yan-Jie Jiang, Yu-Xia Zhang et al. · 0 citations
#natural language process... Preprint Sep 2026

Large Language Models for Programming: Actually Fixing or Reimplementing Incorrect Code?

Recent studies have shown that Large Language Models can effectively solve problems and fix bugs in diverse programming environments, including competitive programming. Existing approaches primarily evaluate LLM performance in problem solving or bug fixing independently, but do not explore the relationship between thes...

Alexandru Stefan Stoica, Traian Rebedea, M. Mihăescu · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.