Yisen Xu

Chenglin Li, Yisen Xu, Zehao Wang et al.

Repository-level automated program repair (APR) requires long-horizon reasoning over interdependent decisions. However, most LLM-based approaches reconstruct repair reasoning independently for each issue, failing to reuse successful patterns from prior repairs, even though real-world repositories contain many related issues with shared structure or constraints. Existing methods typically rely on forward exploration, which operates under outcome uncertainty, incurs substantial inference-time overhead, and can drift from the final correct patch. We propose Conditional Reasoning Distillation (ConRAD), which leverages in-repository resolved issues by reconstructing repair reasoning backward from verified patches and distilling outcome-consistent, stage-wise repair reasoning plans. Injected at inference time, these plans guide fault localization and patch generation, replacing open-ended exploration with constrained inference without fine-tuning or search. On SWE-Bench Lite, ConRAD improves Pass@1 by 10.4\% (GPT-4o), 8.6\% (DeepSeek-V3), and 10.3\% (GPT-5), demonstrating a scalable inference-time alternative to forward exploration for long-horizon APR.

Chenglin Li, Yisen Xu, Zehao Wang et al.

Benchmarks driven by test suites, notably SWE-bench, have become the de facto standard for measuring the effectiveness of automated issue-resolution agents: a generated patch is accepted whenever it passes the accompanying regression tests. In practice, however, insufficiently strong test suites can admit plausible yet semantically incorrect patches, inflating reported success rates. We introduce STING, a framework for targeted test augmentation that uses semantically altered program variants as diagnostic stressors to uncover and repair weaknesses in benchmark regression suites. Variants of the ground-truth patch that still pass the existing tests reveal under-constrained behaviors; these gaps then guide the generation of focused regression tests. A generated test is retained only if it (i) passes on the ground-truth patch, (ii) fails on at least one variant that survived the original suite, and (iii) remains valid under behavior-preserving transformations designed to guard against overfitting. Applied to SWE-bench Verified, STING finds that 77% of instances contain at least one surviving variant. STING produces 1,014 validated tests spanning 211 instances and increases patch-region line and branch coverage by 10.8% and 9.5%, respectively. Re-assessing the top-10 repair agents with the strengthened suites lowers their resolved rates by 4.2%-9.0%, revealing that a substantial share of previously passing patches exploit weaknesses in the benchmark tests rather than faithfully implementing the intended fix. These results underscore that reliable benchmark evaluation depends not only on patch generation, but equally on test adequacy.