Parth Thakkar

Xinyu Lian, Yinfang Chen, Runxiang Cheng et al.

Misconfigurations are major causes of software failures. Existing practices rely on developer-written rules or test cases to validate configurations, which are expensive. Machine learning (ML) for configuration validation is considered a promising direction, but has been facing challenges such as the need of large-scale field data and system-specific models. Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) show promise in addressing some of the long-lasting limitations of ML-based configuration validation. We present a first analysis on the feasibility and effectiveness of using LLMs for configuration validation. We empirically evaluate LLMs as configuration validators by developing a generic LLM-based configuration validation framework, named Ciri. Ciri employs effective prompt engineering with few-shot learning based on both valid configuration and misconfiguration data. Ciri checks outputs from LLMs when producing results, addressing hallucination and nondeterminism of LLMs. We evaluate Ciri's validation effectiveness on eight popular LLMs using configuration data of ten widely deployed open-source systems. Our analysis (1) confirms the potential of using LLMs for configuration validation, (2) explores design space of LLMbased validators like Ciri, and (3) reveals open challenges such as ineffectiveness in detecting certain types of misconfigurations and biases towards popular configuration parameters.

John Yang, Kilian Lieret, Jeffrey Ma et al.

Turning ideas into full software projects from scratch has become a popular use case for language models. Agents are being deployed to seed, maintain, and grow codebases over extended periods with minimal human oversight. Such settings require models to make high-level software architecture decisions. However, existing benchmarks measure focused, limited tasks such as fixing a single bug or developing a single, specified feature. We therefore introduce ProgramBench to measure the ability of software engineering agents to develop software holisitically. In ProgramBench, given only a program and its documentation, agents must architect and implement a codebase that matches the reference executable's behavior. End-to-end behavioral tests are generated via agent-driven fuzzing, enabling evaluation without prescribing implementation structure. Our 200 tasks range from compact CLI tools to widely used software such as FFmpeg, SQLite, and the PHP interpreter. We evaluate 9 LMs and find that none fully resolve any task, with the best model passing 95\% of tests on only 3\% of tasks. Models favor monolithic, single-file implementations that diverge sharply from human-written code.

Omer Dunay, Daniel Cheng, Adam Tait et al.

CodeCompose is an AI-assisted code authoring tool powered by large language models (LLMs) that provides inline suggestions to 10's of thousands of developers at Meta. In this paper, we present how we scaled the product from displaying single-line suggestions to multi-line suggestions. This evolution required us to overcome several unique challenges in improving the usability of these suggestions for developers. First, we discuss how multi-line suggestions can have a 'jarring' effect, as the LLM's suggestions constantly move around the developer's existing code, which would otherwise result in decreased productivity and satisfaction. Second, multi-line suggestions take significantly longer to generate; hence we present several innovative investments we made to reduce the perceived latency for users. These model-hosting optimizations sped up multi-line suggestion latency by 2.5x. Finally, we conduct experiments on 10's of thousands of engineers to understand how multi-line suggestions impact the user experience and contrast this with single-line suggestions. Our experiments reveal that (i) multi-line suggestions account for 42% of total characters accepted (despite only accounting for 16% for displayed suggestions) (ii) multi-line suggestions almost doubled the percentage of keystrokes saved for users from 9% to 17%. Multi-line CodeCompose has been rolled out to all engineers at Meta, and less than 1% of engineers have opted out of multi-line suggestions.

Chandra Maddila, Adam Tait, Claire Chang et al.

Aim: With the advent of LLMs, sophisticated agentic program repair has become viable at large organizations with large codebases. In this work, we develop an Engineering Agent that fixes the source code based on test failures at scale across diverse software offerings internally. Method: Using Llama as the base, we employ the ReAct harness to develop an agent. We start with a test failure that was triaged by a rule-based test failure bot. We then set up an agentic harness and allow the agent to reason and run a set of 15 actions from reading a file to generating a patch. We provide feedback to the agent through static analysis and test failures so it can refine its solution. We leverage an LLM-as-a-Judge to ensure that the patch conforms to the standards followed by a human review to land fixes. Benchmark Findings: We curated offline benchmarks for our patch generator, the Engineering Agent loop, and the LLM-as-a-Judge. In offline evaluations we found that a specialized 70B model is highly competitive with the much larger but vanilla Llama-405B. In an ablation study, we found that the ReAct harness (neural model) benefited from the symbolic information from static analysis tools and test execution traces. A model that strikes a balance between the solve rate and error rate vs the cost and latency has a benchmark solve rate of 42.3% using an average 11.8 feedback iterations. Production Findings: In a three month period, 80% of the generated fixes were reviewed, of which 31.5% were landed (25.5% of the total number of generated fixes). Feedback from Engineers: We used open coding to extract qualitative themes from engineers' feedback. We saw positive feedback in the form of quick approvals, gratitude, and surprise. We also found mixed feedback when the Engineering Agent's solution was partially correct and it served as a good starting point.

Parth Thakkar, Ankush Agarwal, Prasad Kasu et al.

While Multi-modal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have shown impressive capabilities in document understanding tasks, their ability to locate and reason about fine-grained details within complex documents remains understudied. Consider searching a restaurant menu for a specific nutritional detail or identifying a disclaimer in a lengthy newspaper article tasks that demand careful attention to small but significant details within a broader narrative, akin to Finding Needles in Images (NiM). To address this gap, we introduce NiM, a carefully curated benchmark spanning diverse real-world documents including newspapers, menus, and lecture images, specifically designed to evaluate MLLMs' capability in these intricate tasks. Building on this, we further propose Spot-IT, a simple yet effective approach that enhances MLLMs capability through intelligent patch selection and Gaussian attention, motivated from how humans zoom and focus when searching documents. Our extensive experiments reveal both the capabilities and limitations of current MLLMs in handling fine-grained document understanding tasks, while demonstrating the effectiveness of our approach. Spot-IT achieves significant improvements over baseline methods, particularly in scenarios requiring precise detail extraction from complex layouts.

Chandra Maddila, Negar Ghorbani, James Saindon et al.

Aim. There are 10s of thousands of code review comments each week at Meta. We developed Metamate for Code Review (MetaMateCR) that provides AI-assisted fixes for reviewer comments in production at scale. Method. We developed an internal benchmark of 64k <review comment, patch> data points to fine-tune Llama models. Once our models achieve reasonable offline results, we roll them into production. To ensure that our AI-assisted fixes do not negatively impact the time it takes to do code reviews, we conduct randomized controlled safety trials as well as full production experiments. Offline Results. As a baseline, we compare GPT-4o to our small and large Llama models. In offline results, our LargeLSFT model creates an exact match patch 68% of the time outperforming GPT-4o by 9 percentage points (pp). The internal models also use more modern Hack functions when compared to the PHP functions suggested by GPT-4o. Safety Trial. When we roll MetaMateCR into production in a safety trial that compares no AI patches with AI patch suggestions, we see a large regression with reviewers taking over 5% longer to conduct reviews. After investigation, we modify the UX to only show authors the AI patches, and see no regressions in the time for reviews. Production. When we roll LargeLSFT into production, we see an ActionableToApplied rate of 19.7%, which is a 9.2pp improvement over GPT-4o. Our results illustrate the importance of safety trials in ensuring that AI does not inadvertently slow down engineers, and a successful review comment to AI patch product running at scale.