CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 31Software Engineering ResearchSoftware Testing and Debugging TechniquesSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices

SpecRover: Code Intent Extraction via LLMs

Open access
Ruan, Haifeng, Zhang, Yuntong, Roychoudhury, Abhik·2024·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2408.02232arXiv 2408.02232
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Autonomous program improvement typically involves automatically producing bug fixes and feature additions. Such program improvement can be accomplished by a combination of large language model (LLM) and program analysis capabilities, in the form of an LLM agent. Since program repair or program improvement typically requires a specification of intended behavior - specification inference can be useful for producing high quality program patches. In this work, we examine efficient and low-cost workflows for iterative specification inference within an LLM agent. Given a GitHub issue to be resolved in a software project, our goal is to conduct iterative code search accompanied by specification inference - thereby inferring intent from both the project structure and behavior. The intent thus captured is examined by a reviewer agent with the goal of vetting the patches as well as providing a measure of confidence in the vetted patches. Our approach SpecRover (AutoCodeRover-v2) is built on the open-source LLM agent AutoCodeRover. In an evaluation on the full SWE-Bench consisting of 2294 GitHub issues, it shows more than 50% improvement in efficacy over AutoCodeRover. Compared to the open-source agents available, our work shows modest cost ($0.65 per issue) in resolving an average GitHub issue in SWE-Bench lite. The production of explanation by SpecRover allows for a better "signal" to be given to the developer, on when the suggested patches can be accepted with confidence. SpecRover also seeks to demonstrate the continued importance of specification inference in automated program repair, even as program repair technologies enter the LLM era.

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.2408.02232

Cites

21 of 21 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?

  • Following prior work, Agentless generates additional reproduction tests to help with patch selection.

    “Following prior work [Chen et al. 2024;Ruan et al. 2024], Agentless generates additional reproduction test to help with patch selection.”

    From Demystifying LLM-Based Software Engineering Agents (2025) · cites this paper as Ruan et al. 2024

    The Methodology overview describes SpecRover generating a reproducer test and reviewing it alongside a candidate patch. But the Patch Selection section says SpecRover selects among patches using the natural-language issue description, not additional reproduction tests; the paper also does not say that Agentless generates such tests. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

1 of the 22 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. C. E. Jimenez, J. Yang, A. Wettig, S. Yao, K. Pei, O. Press, and K. R. Narasimhan, "SWE-bench: Can language models resolve real- world github issues?" in The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. [Online]. Available: https: //openreview.net/forum?id=VTF8yNQM66
  2. S. Mechtaev, J. Yi, and A. Roychoudhury, "Angelix: Scalable multiline program patch synthesis via symbolic analysis," in International Con- ference on Software Engineering (ICSE), 2016.
  3. J. Yang, C. E. Jimenez, A. Wettig, K. Lieret, S. Yao, K. Narasimhan, and O. Press, "Swe-agent: Agent-computer interfaces enable automated software engineering," 2024.
  4. X. Wang, B. Li, Y. Song, F. F. Xu, X. Tang, M. Zhuge, J. Pan, Y. Song, B. Li, J. Singh et al., "Opendevin: An open platform for ai software developers as generalist agents," arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.16741, 2024. · arXiv
  5. L. Ma, S. Liu, Y. Li, X. Xie, and L. Bu, "Specgen: Automated generation of formal program specifications via large language models," 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.08807 · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Ruan, H., Zhang, Y., & Roychoudhury, A.
Affiliations
National University of Singapore (SG)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
Pages
963-974
ISSN
0270-5257 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2408.02232
arXiv
2408.02232
OpenAlex
W4411552133
Cited by
28
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 9
FWCI
32.02
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings (ICSE-Companion) (publishedVersion)
  • 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
specification inference, automated program repair, LLM agents, GitHub issues, SWE-bench

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