CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 207Software Engineering ResearchSoftware Testing and Debugging TechniquesSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices

AutoCodeRover: Autonomous Program Improvement

Open access
Zhang, Yuntong, Ruan, Haifeng, Fan, Zhiyu, Roychoudhury, Abhik·2024·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2404.05427arXiv 2404.05427
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Researchers have made significant progress in automating the software development process in the past decades. Recent progress in Large Language Models (LLMs) has significantly impacted the development process, where developers can use LLM-based programming assistants to achieve automated coding. Nevertheless, software engineering involves the process of program improvement apart from coding, specifically to enable software maintenance (e.g. bug fixing) and software evolution (e.g. feature additions). In this paper, we propose an automated approach for solving GitHub issues to autonomously achieve program improvement. In our approach called AutoCodeRover, LLMs are combined with sophisticated code search capabilities, ultimately leading to a program modification or patch. In contrast to recent LLM agent approaches from AI researchers and practitioners, our outlook is more software engineering oriented. We work on a program representation (abstract syntax tree) as opposed to viewing a software project as a mere collection of files. Our code search exploits the program structure in the form of classes/methods to enhance LLM's understanding of the issue's root cause, and effectively retrieve a context via iterative search. The use of spectrum-based fault localization using tests, further sharpens the context, as long as a test-suite is available. Experiments on SWE-bench-lite (300 real-life GitHub issues) show increased efficacy in solving GitHub issues (19% on SWE-bench-lite), which is higher than the efficacy of the recently reported SWE-agent. In addition, AutoCodeRover achieved this efficacy with significantly lower cost (on average, $0.43 USD), compared to other baselines. We posit that our workflow enables autonomous software engineering, where, in future, auto-generated code from LLMs can be autonomously improved.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2404.05427

Cites

34 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Single-harness systems such as SWE-agent, AutoCodeRover, OpenHands, and mini-SWE-agent report per-system numbers, but their scaffolds, prompts, budgets, and termination policies vary with the system, making cross-system differences hard to attribute to harness design.

    “Single-harness systems such as SWE-agent [30], AutoCodeRover [38], OpenHands [29], and mini-SWE-agent [32] report per-system numbers, but their scaffolds, prompts, budgets, and termination policies vary with the system, making cross-system differences hard to attribute to harness design.”

    From Claw-SWE-Bench: A Benchmark for Evaluating OpenClaw-style Agent Harnesses on Coding Tasks (2026) · cites this paper as [38]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Each of these prior harnesses reports per-harness resolved rates but does not vary the harness as an experimental axis.

    “Each of these reports per-harness resolved rates but does not vary the harness as an experimental axis: prompt, scaffold, runtime, and termination policy are bundled together with each release.”

    From Claw-SWE-Bench: A Benchmark for Evaluating OpenClaw-style Agent Harnesses on Coding Tasks (2026) · cites this paper as [38]

    Table 2 and §6.1 report resolved rates for AutoCodeRover and comparison systems. However, §6.2 varies AutoCodeRover’s workflow by adding fault localization and a patch-validation retry loop, so a blanket claim that the paper does not vary the harness is too strong. The paper does not separately test prompt, scaffold, runtime, and termination policy as experimental axes. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Performance on SWE-bench has been steadily increasing.

    “Despite its challenging nature, performance on SWE-bench has been steadily increasing (Zhang et al., 2024; factory.ai,2024).”

    From MLE-bench: Evaluating Machine Learning Agents on Machine Learning Engineering (2024) · cites this paper as Zhang et al., 2024

    The Discussion on Experiments and Improvements (section 7; page not provided) says AutoCodeRover was progressing toward better performance and reports recent SWE-bench results, including a 19.27% leaderboard resolve rate. This supports an increase in performance, but the paper does not establish that increases across SWE-bench have been steady over time. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • AutoCodeRover adds code-aware retrieval to the agent loop.

    “AutoCodeRover [38] adds code-aware retrieval to the agent loop.”

    From Claw-SWE-Bench: A Benchmark for Evaluating OpenClaw-style Agent Harnesses on Coding Tasks (2026) · cites this paper as [38]

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. Marcel Böhme, Cristian Cadar, and Abhik Roychoudhury. 2021. Fuzzing: Chal- lenges and Reflections. IEEE Software 38, 3 (2021).
  2. Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Pondé de Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan, Harrison Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, Alex Ray, Raul Puri, Gretchen Krueger, Michael Petrov, Heidy Khlaaf, Girish Sastry, Pamela Mishkin, Brooke Chan, Scott Gray, Nick Ryder, Mikhail Pavlov, Alethea Power, Lukasz Kaiser, Mohammad Bavarian, Clemens Winter, Philippe Tillet, Felipe Petroski Such, Dave Cummings, Matthias Plappert, Fotios Chantzis, Elizabeth Barnes, Ariel Herbert-Voss, William Hebgen Guss, Alex Nichol, Alex Paino, Nikolas Tezak, Jie Tang, Igor Babuschkin, Suchir Balaji, Shantanu Jain, William Saunders, Christopher Hesse, Andrew N. Carr, Jan Leike, Joshua Achiam, Vedant Misra, Evan Morikawa, Alec Radford, Matthew Knight, Miles Brundage, Mira Murati, Katie Mayer, Peter Welinder, Bob McGrew, Dario Amodei, Sam McCandlish, Ilya Sutskever, and Wojciech Zaremba. 2021. Evaluat- ing Large Language Models Trained on Code. arXiv.org abs/2107.03374 (7 2021). arXiv:2107.03374 https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.03374 · arXiv
  3. Claire Le Goues, Michael Pradel, and Abhik Roychoudhury. 2019. Automated program repair. Commun. ACM 62 (11 2019), 56-65. Issue 12.
  4. Carlos E. Jimenez, John Yang, Alexander Wettig, Shunyu Yao, Kexin Pei, Ofir Press, and Karthik Narasimhan. 2024. Leaderboard results on SWE-bench. Retrieved April 8, 2024 from https://www.swebench.com/
  5. Carlos E Jimenez, John Yang, Alexander Wettig, Shunyu Yao, Kexin Pei, Ofir Press, and Karthik R Narasimhan. 2024. SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-world Github Issues?. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations. https://openreview.net/forum?id=VTF8yNQM66
  6. Wuxia Jin et al. 2024. PyAnalyzer: An Effective and Practical Approach for De- pendency Extraction from Python Code. In International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE).
  7. Thibaud Lutellier, Hung Viet Pham, Lawrence Pang, Yitong Li, Moshi Wei, and Lin Tan. 2020. CoCoNuT: combining context-aware neural translation models us- ing ensemble for program repair., In ISSTA '20: 29th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, Virtual Event, USA, July 18-22, 2020, Sarfraz Khurshid and Corina S. Pasareanu (Eds.). International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, 101-114.
  8. Sergey Mechtaev, Jooyong Yi, and Abhik Roychoudhury. 2016. Angelix: scalable multiline program patch synthesis via symbolic analysis., In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2016, Austin, TX, USA, May 14-22, 2016, Laura K. Dillon, Willem Visser, and Laurie Williams (Eds.). International Conference on Software Engineering, 691-701.
  9. Yannic Noller, Ridwan Shariffdeen, Xiang Gao, and Abhik Roychoudhury. 2022. Trust Enhancement Issues in Program Repair. In IEEE/ACM 44th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE).
  10. David Williams, James Callan, Serkan Kirbas, Sergey Mechtaev, Justyna Petke, Thomas Prideaux-Ghee, and Federica Sarro. 2023. User-Centric Deployment of Automated Program Repair at Bloomberg. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.10516 (2023). · arXiv
  11. W Eric Wong, Ruizhi Gao, Yihao Li, Rui Abreu, and Franz Wotawa. 2016. A survey on software fault localization. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 42, 8 (2016), 707-740.
  12. John Yang, Carlos E. Jimenez, Alexander Wettig, Kilian Lieret, Shunyu Yao, Karthik Narasimhan, and Ofir Press. 2024. SWE-agent: Agent-Computer In- terfaces Enable Automated Software Engineering. arXiv:2405.15793 [cs.SE] · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Zhang, Y., Ruan, H., Fan, Z., & Roychoudhury, A.
Affiliations
National University of Singapore (SG)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
Pages
1592-1604
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2404.05427
arXiv
2404.05427
OpenAlex
W4402442868
Cited by
202
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 123 · 2025: 70 · 2024: 9
FWCI
76.83
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • Ministry of Education, India
  • Bộ Giáo dục và Ðào tạo
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
Keywords
program improvement, program repair, large language models, code search, spectrum-based fault localization, abstract syntax tree, software maintenance, software evolution, LLM agents

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