Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 203

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Automated Program Repair via Conversation: Fixing 162 out of 337 Bugs for $0.42 Each using ChatGPT

Open access
Xia, Chunqiu Steven, Zhang, Lingming·2024·Proceedings of the 33rd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis

Abstract

Automated Program Repair (APR) aims to automatically generate patches for buggy programs. Traditional APR techniques suffer from a lack of patch variety as they rely heavily on handcrafted or mined bug fixing patterns and cannot easily generalize to other bug/fix types. To address this limitation, recent APR work has been focused on leveraging modern Large Language Models (LLMs) to directly generate patches for APR. Such LLM-based APR tools work by first constructing an input prompt built using the original buggy code and then querying the LLM to either fill-in (cloze-style APR) the correct code at the bug location or to produce a completely new code snippet as the patch. While the LLM-based APR tools are able to achieve state-of-the-art results, they still follow the classic Generate and Validate (GV) repair paradigm of first generating lots of patches by sampling from the same initial prompt and then validating each one afterwards. This not only leads to many repeated patches that are incorrect, but also misses the crucial and yet previously ignored information in test failures as well as in plausible patches. To address these aforementioned limitations, we propose ChatRepair, the first fully automated conversation-driven APR approach that interleaves patch generation with instant feedback to perform APR in a conversational style. ChatRepair first feeds the LLM with relevant test failure information to start with, and then learns from both failures and successes of earlier patching attempts of the same bug for more powerful APR. For earlier patches that failed to pass all tests, we combine the incorrect patches with their corresponding relevant test failure information to construct a new prompt for the LLM to generate the next patch. In this way, we can avoid making the same mistakes. For earlier patches that passed all the tests (i.e., plausible patches), we further ask the LLM to generate alternative variations of the original plausible patches. In this way, we can further build on and learn from earlier successes to generate more plausible patches to increase the chance of having correct patches. While our approach is general, we implement ChatRepair using state-of-the-art dialogue-based LLM – ChatGPT. Our evaluation on the widely studied Defects4j dataset shows that ChatRepair is able to achieve the new state-of-the-art in repair performance, achieving 114 and 48 correct fixes on Defects4j 1.2 and 2.0 respectively. By calculating the cost of accessing ChatGPT, we can fix 162 out of 337 bugs for $0.42 each!

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 · 10.1145/3650212.3680323

Cites

16 of 16 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 16 references

Cited by

See all 203

Metadata

Authors
Xia, C. S., & Zhang, L.
Venue
Proceedings of the 33rd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis
Publisher
ACM
Published
2024-09-11
Pages
819-831
OpenAlex
W4402457546
Cited by
203
References
16
FWCI
54.01
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Automated Program Repair via Conversation: Fixing 162 out of 337 Bugs for $0.42 Each using ChatGPT. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/3650212.3680323
The paper
Xia, C. S., & Zhang, L. (2024). Automated Program Repair via Conversation: Fixing 162 out of 337 Bugs for $0.42 Each using ChatGPT. Proceedings of the 33rd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1145/3650212.3680323

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.