David Lo

Zhihao Lin, Mingyi Zhou, Zhensu Sun et al.

Open-source libraries and tools are widely reused, but compatibility maintenance is expensive. Once maintainers leave, useful repositories can stop working as runtimes and dependencies evolve. We study whether LLM agents can adapt old repositories to modern environments, a task we call compatibility rescue. Unlike bug repair, compatibility rescue starts from a repository that worked in its original environment but fails after ecosystem drift. RepoRescue gives agents only the repository and its failing modern environment; the agent must diagnose the failure, locate affected code, and produce a source-code rescue that restores the historical test suite. We build RepoRescue from 193 Python and 122 Java repositories, each verified to pass historically and fail after modernization. We evaluate five deployed agent systems on Python and three on Java. Beyond full-patch pass rate, we rerun patches after removing test-file edits to measure source-only repair, add a runtime-enforced regime that blocks test edits, and validate practical use for repositories whose suites pass after rescue. We find that Claude Code systems sometimes edit failing tests even when prompted not to; with runtime blocking, Kimi still rescues 41.5% of repositories. Systems are complementary: their union reaches 62.7%, exceeding the best single system by 10.9 points. Difficulty concentrates in cross-file coordination: on 14 repositories requiring coordinated whole-codebase changes, GPT-5.2 through Codex passes all 14, while every Claude Code system passes at most two. Finally, a passing suite is only an initial signal: among 34 unmaintained Python candidates whose suites pass after rescue, 22 work in realistic scenarios and 12 pass bug-hunt with patches that address the compatibility failure. RepoRescue benchmarks compatibility rescue with source-only auditing, runtime enforcement, practical validation, and reasoning labels.

Zhi Chen, Zhensu Sun, Yuling Shi et al.

Repository-level performance-optimization benchmarks such as GSO, SWE-Perf and SWE-fficiency evaluate coding agents by applying patches to real repositories and comparing runtime against unoptimized baselines and official reference patches. Their leaderboard scores are increasingly used as evidence of coding-agent progress, but those scores can conflate runtime instability, benchmark-specific scoring rules, and how many tasks are already solved by at least one public submission. We audit these issues across the three benchmarks. First, we replay the official reference patches for 740 code optimization tasks across four common types of Google Cloud machines. Most benchmark tasks can be replayed, but their reference patches satisfy the original benchmark validity rules in every cross-machine replay for only 39/102 GSO tasks, 11/140 SWE-Perf tasks, and 411/498 SWE-fficiency tasks; SWE-Perf is especially fragile because many reference patches produce close-to-zero runtime changes. Second, we show that public submission rankings depend strongly on the benchmark scoring rule. Among eight public submissions shared by GSO and SWE-fficiency, the official rankings disagree on 9 of 28 pairwise submission comparisons, and SWE-fficiency's leaderboard scoring rule assigns the worst ten tasks overly high score weights of 58.5%-82.8%. Third, looking across 10 public submissions for each task, we find that at least one submission matches or beats the reference patch on 85.3% (384/450) of replay-valid GSO and SWE-fficiency tasks, and beats the unoptimized base code on 99.8% (449/450). Our study complements leaderboard scores by identifying tasks with more reliable performance signals, quantifying per-task score contributions, and exposing the remaining performance gaps that are hidden by aggregate rankings.

Sicong Cao, Hao Ma, Le Yu et al.

Frontier foundation models have changed the math on vulnerability discovery, but the bigger challenge is how the remediation side keeps up. Despite recent progresses in Automated Vulnerability Repair (AVR), current solutions struggle to reliably identify the root causes of vulnerabilities, and insufficiently utilize the prior fix knowledge to guide the patch generation process, thus undermining their effectiveness in practice. To address this gap, we propose KeaRepair, a novel agentic AVR approach that grounds patch generation in verified program facts and high-level vulnerability knowledge. Specifically, KeaRepair first extracts multi-dimensional vulnerability knowledge from historical vulnerability-patch pairs from dual complementary views, and constructs dedicated retrieval knowledge bases. It then employs a tool-augmented agent that performs ReAct-style reasoning to collect verified program facts for vulnerability diagnosis. Finally, based on the diagnostic results, KeaRepair performs knowledge-level retrieval-augmented patch generation and iteratively refines patches through a closed-loop validation process involving compilation, PoC replay, and test-suite execution. Experimental results show that KeaRepair significantly outperforms existing AVR approaches on 55 reproducible C/C++ vulnerabilities. When paired with Gemini-3.1-Pro, KeaRepair successfully repairs 46 vulnerabilities, achieving a repair rate of 83.64%. Moreover, KeaRepair fixes six unique vulnerabilities that none of the baselines can address, and further demonstrates strong cross-language generalizability.