Reyhaneh Jabbarvand

Yang Chen, Toufique Ahmed, Reyhaneh Jabbarvand et al.

Test suites in real-world projects are often large and achieve high code coverage, yet they remain insufficient for detecting all bugs. The abundance of unresolved issues in open-source project trackers highlights this gap. While regression tests are typically designed to ensure past functionality is preserved in the new version, they can also serve a complementary purpose: debugging the current version. Specifically, regression tests can (1) enhance the generation of reproduction tests for newly reported issues, and (2) validate that patches do not regress existing functionality. We present TestPrune, a fully automated technique that leverages issue tracker reports and strategically reuses regression tests for both bug reproduction and patch validation. A key contribution of TestPrune is its ability to automatically minimize the regression suite to a small, highly relevant subset of tests. Due to the predominance of LLM-based debugging techniques, this minimization is essential as large test suites exceed context limits, introduce noise, and inflate inference costs. TestPrune can be plugged into any agentic bug repair pipeline and orthogonally improve overall performance. As a proof of concept, we show that TestPrune leads to a 6.2%-9.0% relative increase in issue reproduction rate within the Otter framework and a 8.0%-12.9% relative increase in issue resolution rate within Agentless, SWE-Agent, and Trae agent on SWE-Bench Lite and SWE-Bench Verified benchmarks. Compared to the benefits, the model API cost overhead of TestPrune is minimal, at $0.02 and $0.05 per SWE-Bench instance using GPT-4o and Claude-3.7-Sonnet models, respectively.

Ali Reza Ibrahimzada, Yigit Varli, Dilara Tekinoglu et al.

Automation of test oracles is one of the most challenging facets of software testing, but remains comparatively less addressed compared to automated test input generation. Test oracles rely on a ground-truth that can distinguish between the correct and buggy behavior to determine whether a test fails (detects a bug) or passes. What makes the oracle problem challenging and undecidable is the assumption that the ground-truth should know the exact expected, correct, or buggy behavior. However, we argue that one can still build an accurate oracle without knowing the exact correct or buggy behavior, but how these two might differ. This paper presents SEER, a learning-based approach that in the absence of test assertions or other types of oracle, can determine whether a unit test passes or fails on a given method under test (MUT). To build the ground-truth, SEER jointly embeds unit tests and the implementation of MUTs into a unified vector space, in such a way that the neural representation of tests are similar to that of MUTs they pass on them, but dissimilar to MUTs they fail on them. The classifier built on top of this vector representation serves as the oracle to generate "fail" labels, when test inputs detect a bug in MUT or "pass" labels, otherwise. Our extensive experiments on applying SEER to more than 5K unit tests from a diverse set of open-source Java projects show that the produced oracle is (1) effective in predicting the fail or pass labels, achieving an overall accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 measure of 93%, 86%, 94%, and 90%, (2) generalizable, predicting the labels for the unit test of projects that were not in training or validation set with negligible performance drop, and (3) efficient, detecting the existence of bugs in only 6.5 milliseconds on average.

Chenyuan Yang, Yinlin Deng, Runyu Lu et al.

Compiler correctness is crucial, as miscompilation can falsify program behaviors, leading to serious consequences. Fuzzing has been studied to uncover compiler defects. However, compiler fuzzing remains challenging: Existing arts focus on black- and grey-box fuzzing, which generates tests without sufficient understanding of internal compiler behaviors. Meanwhile, traditional white-box techniques, like symbolic execution, are computationally inapplicable to the giant codebase of compilers. Recent advances demonstrate that Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in code generation/understanding tasks. Nonetheless, guiding LLMs with compiler source-code information remains a missing piece of research in compiler testing. To this end, we propose WhiteFox, the first white-box compiler fuzzer using LLMs with source-code information to test compiler optimization, with a spotlight on detecting deep logic bugs in the deep learning (DL) compilers. WhiteFox adopts a multi-agent framework: an LLM-based analysis agent examines the low-level optimization source code and produces requirements on the high-level test programs that can trigger the optimization; an LLM-based generation agent produces test programs based on the summarized requirements. Additionally, optimization-triggering tests are used as feedback to enhance the generation on the fly. Our evaluation on the three most popular DL compilers (i.e., PyTorch Inductor, TensorFlow-XLA, and TensorFlow Lite) shows WhiteFox can generate high-quality test programs to exercise deep optimizations, practicing up to 8X more than state-of-the-art fuzzers. WhiteFox has found 101 bugs for the DL compilers, with 92 confirmed as previously unknown and 70 fixed. WhiteFox has been acknowledged by the PyTorch team and is being incorporated into its development workflow. Beyond DL compilers, WhiteFox can also be adapted for compilers in different domains.

Shuyang Liu, Saman Dehghan, Jatin Ganhotra et al.

Agents aspire to eliminate the need for task-specific prompt crafting through autonomous reason-act-observe loops. Still, they are commonly instructed to follow a task-specific plan for guidance, e.g., to resolve software issues following phases for navigation, reproduction, patch, and validation. Unfortunately, it is unknown to what extent agents actually follow such instructed plans. Without such an analysis, determining the extent agents comply with a given plan, it is impossible to assess whether a solution was reached through correct strategic reasoning or through other means, e.g., data contamination or overfitting to a benchmark. This paper presents the first extensive, systematic analysis of plan compliance in programming agents, examining 16,991 trajectories from SWE-agent across four LLMs on SWE-bench Verified and SWE-bench Pro under eight plan variations. Without an explicit plan, agents fall back on workflows internalized during training, which are often incomplete, overfit, or inconsistently applied. Providing the standard plan improves issue resolution, and we observe that periodic plan reminders can mitigate plan violations and improve task success. A subpar plan hurts performance even more than no plan at all. Surprisingly, augmenting a plan with additional task-relevant phases in the early stage can degrade performance, particularly when these phases do not align with the model's internal problem-solving strategy. These findings highlight a research gap: fine-tuning paradigms that teach models to follow instructed plans, rather than encoding task-specific plans in them. This requires teaching models to reason and act adaptively, rather than memorizing workflows.

Changshu Liu, Yang Chen, Reyhaneh Jabbarvand

This paper proposes CES, a task to evaluate the abilities of LLMs in simulating program execution and using that reasoning in programming tasks. Besides measuring the correctness of variable predictions during execution simulation, CES introduces the notion of coherence to determine whether the simulation complies with commonsense execution logic, even if the predicted values along the simulations are incorrect. This enables CES to rule out suspiciously correct output predictions due to reasoning shortcuts, hallucinations, or potential data leakage. CES also introduces a novel metric to measure reasoning consistency across tests with the same or different prime path coverage in a spectrum: strong, weak, and random. Evaluating 16 LLMs (including three reasoning LLMs) using CES indicates 81.42% coherent execution simulation on HumanEval, 46.92% and 53.08% of which result in correct and incorrect output predictions. Frontier LLMs such as GPT-4 and DeepSeek-R1 have the most incoherent execution reasoning, mostly due to natural language shortcuts. Despite relatively coherent execution simulation, LLMs' reasoning performance across different tests is inconsistent, mostly random (48.87%) or weak (45.37%), potentially explaining their weakness in programming tasks that require path-sensitive program analysis to succeed. We also compare CES with bug prediction/localization/repair, which intuitively requires control- and data-flow awareness. We observe that LLMs barely incorporate execution reasoning into their analysis for bug-related tasks, and their success is primarily due to inherent abilities in pattern matching or natural language shortcuts, if not data leakage. Without reasoning, there is a threat to the generalizability of LLMs in dealing with unseen bugs or patterns in different contexts. CES can be used to vet the suspicious success of LLMs in these tasks systematically.

Ali Reza Ibrahimzada, Yang Chen, Ryan Rong et al.

Bugs are essential in software engineering; many research studies in the past decades have been proposed to detect, localize, and repair bugs in software systems. Effectiveness evaluation of such techniques requires complex bugs, i.e., those that are hard to detect through testing and hard to repair through debugging. From the classic software engineering point of view, a hard-to-repair bug differs from the correct code in multiple locations, making it hard to localize and repair. Hard-to-detect bugs, on the other hand, manifest themselves under specific test inputs and reachability conditions. These two objectives, i.e., generating hard-to-detect and hard-to-repair bugs, are mostly aligned; a bug generation technique can change multiple statements to be covered only under a specific set of inputs. However, these two objectives are conflicting for learning-based techniques: A bug should have a similar code representation to the correct code in the training data to challenge a bug prediction model to distinguish them. The hard-to-repair bug definition remains the same but with a caveat: the more a bug differs from the original code, the more distant their representations are and easier to be detected. We propose BugFarm, to transform arbitrary code into multiple complex bugs. BugFarm leverages LLMs to mutate code in multiple locations (hard-to-repair). To ensure that multiple modifications do not notably change the code representation, BugFarm analyzes the attention of the underlying model and instructs LLMs to only change the least attended locations (hard-to-detect). Our comprehensive evaluation of 435k+ bugs from over 1.9M mutants generated by BUGFARM and two alternative approaches demonstrates our superiority in generating bugs that are hard to detect by learning-based bug prediction approaches and hard-to-repair by state-of-the-art learning-based program repair technique.

Ali Reza Ibrahimzada, Kaiyao Ke, Mrigank Pawagi et al.

Code translation transforms programs from one programming language (PL) to another. Several rule-based transpilers have been designed to automate code translation between different pairs of PLs. However, the rules can become obsolete as the PLs evolve and cannot generalize to other PLs. Recent studies have explored the automation of code translation using Large Language Models (LLMs). One key observation is that such techniques may work well for crafted benchmarks but fail to generalize to the scale and complexity of real-world projects with dependencies, custom types, PL-specific features, etc. We propose AlphaTrans, a neuro-symbolic approach to automate repository-level code translation. AlphaTrans translates both source and test code, and employs multiple levels of validation to ensure the translation preserves the functionality of the source program. To break down the problem for LLMs, AlphaTrans leverages program analysis to decompose the program into fragments and translates them in the reverse call order. We leveraged AlphaTrans to translate ten real-world open-source projects consisting of <836, 8575, 2719> classes, methods, and tests. AlphaTrans breaks down these projects into 17874 fragments and translates the entire repository. 96.40% of the translated fragments are syntactically correct, and AlphaTrans validates the translations' runtime behavior and functional correctness for 27.03% and 25.14% of fragments. On average, the integrated translation and validation take 34 hours to translate a project, showing its scalability in practice. For the incorrect translations, AlphaTrans generates a report including existing translation, stack trace, test errors, or assertion failures. We provided these artifacts to two developers to fix the translation bugs in four projects. They were able to fix the issues in 20.1 hours on average and achieve all passing tests.

Jaid Monwar Chowdhury, Chi-An Fu, Reyhaneh Jabbarvand

Automated unit test generation for C remains a formidable challenge due to the semantic gap between high-level program intent and the rigid syntactic constraints of pointer arithmetic and manual memory management. While Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit strong generative capabilities, direct intent-to-code synthesis frequently suffers from the leap-to-code failure mode, where models prematurely emit code without grounding in program structure, constraints, and semantics. This will result in non-compilable tests, hallucinated function signatures, low branch coverage, and semantically irrelevant assertions that cannot properly capture bugs. We introduce SPARC, a neuro-symbolic, scenario-based framework that bridges this gap through four stages: (1) Control Flow Graph (CFG) analysis, (2) an Operation Map that grounds LLM reasoning in validated utility helpers, (3) Path-targeted test synthesis, and (4) an iterative, self-correction validation loop using compiler and runtime feedback. We evaluate SPARC on 59 real-world and algorithmic subjects, where it outperforms the vanilla prompt generation baseline by 31.36% in line coverage, 26.01% in branch coverage, and 20.78% in mutation score, matching or exceeding the symbolic execution tool KLEE on complex subjects. SPARC retains 94.3% of tests through iterative repair and produces code with significantly higher developer-rated readability and maintainability. By aligning LLM reasoning with program structure, SPARC provides a scalable path for industrial-grade testing of legacy C codebases.

Changshu Liu, Alireza Ghazanfari, Yang Chen et al.

Code reasoning tasks are becoming prevalent in large language model (LLM) assessments. Yet, there is a dearth of studies on the impact of real-world complexities on code reasoning, e.g., inter- or intra-procedural dependencies, API calls, deeply nested constructs, and non-primitive complex types. Evaluating LLMs under such a simplistic setting poses a significant threat to assumptions about their generalizability in practice. To enable a more realistic evaluation of code reasoning, we construct a dataset of 1200 reasoning problems from two sources: existing code reasoning benchmarks and popular GitHub Python repositories. Our pipeline leverages static and dynamic program analysis to automatically serialize/deserialize compound, complex, and custom types galore in real-world code, going far beyond only primitive types used in prior studies. A key feature of our dataset is categorizing each reasoning problem as Lower Complexity (LC) or Higher Complexity (HC) via a principled majority-vote mechanism over nine diverse and interpretable code-complexity metrics, yielding two well-separated, semantically meaningful categories of problem difficulty suitable for precise calibration of LLM reasoning ability. This categorization shows that the problems used in existing code-reasoning evaluation mostly belong to the LC category, failing to represent real-world complexity.

Deming Chen, Alaa Youssef, Ruchi Pendse et al.

This white paper, developed through close collaboration between IBM Research and UIUC researchers within the IIDAI Institute, envisions transforming hybrid cloud systems to meet the growing complexity of AI workloads through innovative, full-stack co-design approaches, emphasizing usability, manageability, affordability, adaptability, efficiency, and scalability. By integrating cutting-edge technologies such as generative and agentic AI, cross-layer automation and optimization, unified control plane, and composable and adaptive system architecture, the proposed framework addresses critical challenges in energy efficiency, performance, and cost-effectiveness. Incorporating quantum computing as it matures will enable quantum-accelerated simulations for materials science, climate modeling, and other high-impact domains. Collaborative efforts between academia and industry are central to this vision, driving advancements in foundation models for material design and climate solutions, scalable multimodal data processing, and enhanced physics-based AI emulators for applications like weather forecasting and carbon sequestration. Research priorities include advancing AI agentic systems, LLM as an Abstraction (LLMaaA), AI model optimization and unified abstractions across heterogeneous infrastructure, end-to-end edge-cloud transformation, efficient programming model, middleware and platform, secure infrastructure, application-adaptive cloud systems, and new quantum-classical collaborative workflows. These ideas and solutions encompass both theoretical and practical research questions, requiring coordinated input and support from the research community. This joint initiative aims to establish hybrid clouds as secure, efficient, and sustainable platforms, fostering breakthroughs in AI-driven applications and scientific discovery across academia, industry, and society.

Ali Reza Ibrahimzada, Brandon Paulsen, Daniel Kroening et al.

Most repository-level code translation and validation techniques have been evaluated on a single source-target programming language (PL) pair, owing to the complex engineering effort required to adapt new PL pairs. Programming agents can enable PL-agnosticism in repository-level code translation and validation: they can synthesize code across many PLs and autonomously use existing tools specific to each PL's analysis. However, state-of-the-art has yet to offer a fully autonomous agentic approach for repository-level code translation and validation of large-scale programs. This paper proposes ReCodeAgent, an autonomous multi-agent approach for language-agnostic repository-level code translation and validation. Users only need to provide the project in the source PL and specify the target PL for ReCodeAgent to automatically translate and validate the entire repository. ReCodeAgent is the first technique to achieve high translation success rates across many PLs. We compare the effectiveness of ReCodeAgent with four alternative neuro-symbolic and agentic approaches to translate 118 real-world projects, with 1,975 LoC and 43 translation units for each project, on average. The projects cover 6 PLs (C, Go, Java, JavaScript, Python, and Rust) and 4 PL pairs (C-Rust, Go-Rust, Java-Python, Python-JavaScript). Our results demonstrate that ReCodeAgent consistently outperforms prior techniques on translation correctness, improving test pass rate by 60.8% on ground-truth tests, with an average cost of $15.3. We also perform process-centric analysis of ReCodeAgent trajectories to confirm its procedural efficiency. Finally, we investigate how the design choices (a multi-agent vs. single-agent architecture) influence ReCodeAgent performance: on average, the test pass rate drops by 40.4%, and trajectories become 28% longer and persistently inefficient.

Changshu Liu, Yang Chen, Reyhaneh Jabbarvand

Large Language Models (LLMs) have been widely used to automate programming tasks. Their capabilities have been evaluated by assessing the quality of generated code through tests or proofs. The extent to which they can reason about code is a critical question revealing important insights about their true capabilities. This paper introduces CodeMind, a framework designed to gauge the code reasoning abilities of LLMs through the following explicit and implicit code reasoning tasks: Independent Execution Reasoning (IER), Specification Reasoning (SR) and Dynamic Semantics Reasoning (DSR). The first evaluates the abilities of LLMs to simulate the execution of given inputs to a code and predict the output (IER). The second assesses the abilities of LLMs to incorporate the simulation of test data in the specification into code generation (SR). Finally, CodeMind evaluates LLMs' abilities to understand overall code semantics only given a specific input/output (DSR). Our extensive evaluation of ten LLMs across four widely used benchmarks using CodeMind shows that LLMs, depending on their size and training strategy, can reason about some dynamic aspects of code. However, their performance drops for code with higher complexity, non-trivial logical and arithmetic operators, non-primitive types, and API calls. We show that these reasoning tasks evaluate LLMs differently, and a comprehensive evaluation of code reasoning requires them all. Finally, we show that the performance of LLMs in bug repair is not correlated with any of the code reasoning tasks, and except for advanced frontier models, other LLMs do not incorporate code reasoning when performing bug repair.

Ali Reza Ibrahimzada, Brandon Paulsen, Reyhaneh Jabbarvand et al.

Code translation transforms source code from one programming language (PL) to another. Validating the functional equivalence of translation and repairing, if necessary, are critical steps in code translation. Existing automated validation and repair approaches struggle to generalize to many PLs due to high engineering overhead, and they rely on existing and often inadequate test suites, which results in false claims of equivalence and ineffective translation repair. We develop MatchFixAgent, a large language model (LLM)-based, PL-agnostic framework for equivalence validation and repair of translations. MatchFixAgent features a multi-agent architecture that divides equivalence validation into several sub-tasks to ensure thorough and consistent semantic analysis of the translation. Then it feeds this analysis to test agent to write and execute tests. Upon observing a test failure, the repair agent attempts to fix the translation bug. The final (in)equivalence decision is made by the verdict agent, considering semantic analyses and test execution results. We compare MatchFixAgent's validation and repair results with four repository-level code translation techniques. We use 2,219 translation pairs from their artifacts, which cover 6 PL pairs, and are collected from 24 GitHub projects totaling over 900K lines of code. Our results demonstrate that MatchFixAgent produces (in)equivalence verdicts for 99.2% of translation pairs, with the same equivalence validation result as prior work on 72.8% of them. When MatchFixAgent's result disagrees with prior work, we find that 60.7% of the time MatchFixAgent's result is actually correct. In addition, we show that MatchFixAgent can repair 50.6% of inequivalent translation, compared to prior work's 18.5%. This demonstrates that MatchFixAgent is far more adaptable to many PL pairs than prior work, while producing highly accurate validation results.

Xingyao Wang, Hao Peng, Reyhaneh Jabbarvand et al.

Fine-tuning pre-trained language models (LMs) is essential for enhancing their capabilities. Existing techniques commonly fine-tune on input-output pairs (e.g., instruction tuning) or with numerical rewards that gauge the output quality (e.g., RLHF). We explore LMs' potential to learn from textual interactions (LETI) that not only check their correctness with binary labels but also pinpoint and explain errors in their outputs through textual feedback. Our focus is the code generation task, where the model produces code based on natural language instructions. This setting invites a natural and scalable way to acquire textual feedback: the error messages and stack traces from code execution using a Python interpreter. LETI iteratively fine-tunes the model, using the LM objective, on a concatenation of natural language instructions, LM-generated programs, and textual feedback. Prepended to this fine-tuning text, a binary reward token is used to differentiate correct and buggy solutions. LETI requires no ground-truth outputs for training and even outperforms a fine-tuned baseline that does. LETI not only improves the performance of LMs on a code generation dataset MBPP, but also generalizes to other datasets. Trained on MBPP, it achieves comparable or better performance than the base LMs on unseen problems in HumanEval. Furthermore, compared to binary feedback, we observe that textual feedback leads to improved generation quality and sample efficiency, achieving the same performance with fewer than half of the gradient steps. LETI is equally applicable in natural language tasks when they can be formulated as code generation, which we empirically verified on event argument extraction.