Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 188

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

FixMiner: Mining relevant fix patterns for automated program repair

Open access
Koyuncu, Anil, Liu, Kui, Bissyandé, Tegawendé F., Kim, Dongsun, Klein, Jacques, Monperrus, Martin, Le Traon, Yves·2020·Empirical Software Engineering

Abstract

Patching is a common activity in software development. It is generally performed on a source code base to address bugs or add new functionalities. In this context, given the recurrence of bugs across projects, the associated similar patches can be leveraged to extract generic fix actions. While the literature includes various approaches leveraging similarity among patches to guide program repair, these approaches often do not yield fix patterns that are tractable and reusable as actionable input to APR systems. In this paper, we propose a systematic and automated approach to mining relevant and actionable fix patterns based on an iterative clustering strategy applied to atomic changes within patches. The goal of FixMiner is thus to infer separate and reusable fix patterns that can be leveraged in other patch generation systems. Our technique, FixMiner, leverages Rich Edit Script which is a specialized tree structure of the edit scripts that captures the AST-level context of the code changes. FixMiner uses different tree representations of Rich Edit Scripts for each round of clustering to identify similar changes. These are abstract syntax trees, edit actions trees, and code context trees. We have evaluated FixMiner on thousands of software patches collected from open source projects. Preliminary results show that we are able to mine accurate patterns, efficiently exploiting change information in Rich Edit Scripts. We further integrated the mined patterns to an automated program repair prototype, PARFixMiner, with which we are able to correctly fix 26 bugs of the Defects4J benchmark. Beyond this quantitative performance, we show that the mined fix patterns are sufficiently relevant to produce patches with a high probability of correctness: 81% of PARFixMiner’s generated plausible patches are correct.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10664-019-09780-z

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 188

Metadata

Authors
Koyuncu, A., Liu, K., Bissyandé, T. F., Kim, D., Klein, J., Monperrus, M., & Le Traon, Y.
Venue
Empirical Software Engineering
Published
2020-03-14
Volume
25
Issue
3
Pages
1980-2024
ISSN
  • 1382-3256 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-7616
OpenAlex
W2895570420
Cited by
188
References
3
FWCI
41.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: FixMiner: Mining relevant fix patterns for automated program repair. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s10664-019-09780-z
The paper
Koyuncu, A., Liu, K., Bissyandé, T. F., Kim, D., Klein, J., Monperrus, M., & Le Traon, Y. (2020). FixMiner: Mining relevant fix patterns for automated program repair. Empirical Software Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-019-09780-z

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.