The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Automatic patch generation learned from human-written patches
Abstract
Patch generation is an essential software maintenance task because most software systems inevitably have bugs that need to be fixed. Unfortunately, human resources are often insufficient to fix all reported and known bugs. To address this issue, several automated patch generation techniques have been proposed. In particular, a genetic-programming-based patch generation technique, GenProg, proposed by Weimer et al., has shown promising results. However, these techniques can generate nonsensical patches due to the randomness of their mutation operations. To address this limitation, we propose a novel patch generation approach, Pattern-based Automatic program Repair (Par), using fix patterns learned from existing human-written patches. We manually inspected more than 60,000 human-written patches and found there are several common fix patterns. Our approach leverages these fix patterns to generate program patches automatically. We experimentally evaluated Par on 119 real bugs. In addition, a user study involving 89 students and 164 developers confirmed that patches generated by our approach are more acceptable than those generated by GenProg. Par successfully generated patches for 27 out of 119 bugs, while GenProg was successful for only 16 bugs.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Individual Comparisons by Ranking Methods
Wilcoxon, F. (1945) · Biometrics Bulletin · doi:10.2307/3001968 · Cited by 15,354
Questions programmers ask during software evolution tasks
Sillito, J., Murphy, G. C., & De Volder, K. (2006) · Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on Foundations of software engineering · doi:10.1145/1181775.1181779 · Cited by 270
Automatically documenting program changes
Buse, R. P. L., & Weimer, W. R. (2010) · Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM international conference on Automated software engineering · doi:10.1145/1858996.1859005 · Cited by 219
Cited by
Mutation Testing Advances: An Analysis and Survey
(2019) · Advances in Computers · doi:10.1016/bs.adcom.2018.03.015 · Cited by 425
Le Goues, C., Pradel, M., & Roychoudhury, A. (2019) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3318162 · Cited by 410
An Empirical Study on Learning Bug-Fixing Patches in the Wild via Neural Machine Translation
Tufano, M., Watson, C., Bavota, G., Penta, M. D., White, M., & Poshyvanyk, D. (2019) · ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · doi:10.1145/3340544 · Cited by 370
The ManyBugs and IntroClass benchmarks for automated repair of C programs
Le Goues, C., Holtschulte, N., Smith, E. K., Brun, Y., Devanbu, P., Forrest, S., & Weimer, W. (2015) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2015.2454513 · Cited by 326
Le, X. B. D., Lo, D., & Le Goues, C. (2016) · 2016 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering (SANER) · doi:10.1109/saner.2016.76 · Cited by 332
Metadata
- Authors
- Kim, D., Nam, J., Song, J., & Kim, S.
- Venue
- 2013 35th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2013-05
- Pages
- 802-811
- ISSN
- 0270-5257 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4255632703
- Cited by
- 449
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 14.93
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Automatic patch generation learned from human-written patches. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/icse.2013.6606626
- The paper
- Kim, D., Nam, J., Song, J., & Kim, S. (2013). Automatic patch generation learned from human-written patches. 2013 35th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). https://doi.org/10.1109/icse.2013.6606626
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.