PreprintCited by 0Software Engineering ResearchSoftware Testing and Debugging TechniquesSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices

Who Broke Me? Execution-Guided Repair of Behavioral Dependency Breaks

Open access
Chen, Juntao, Bi, Tingting, Wang, Yanlin, Thongtanunam, Patanamon·2026·arXiv

Abstract

Dependency upgrades can break downstream projects without changing the library interface. Such behavioral breaking changes are difficult for developers to fix, because the failing test does not always point to the root API, the upstream API that causes the break. Existing LLM-based repair methods obtain evidence for the repair from compiler feedback or library documentation. However, a behavioral break produces no compiler feedback and is often undocumented. Agents that receive no upgrade evidence also usually do not retrieve upstream evidence themselves, and most of their failed repairs do not identify the root API. The library diff provides useful upstream evidence, but the root API must first be identified to select the relevant part of the diff. We present BBCFixer, a repair method that runs the failing test under the old and new library versions, ranks the calls whose return value differs to identify a candidate root API, and filters the library diff with that candidate. To evaluate repairs of behavioral breaks, we further introduce BBCBench, a benchmark of 100 behavioral dependency breaks in Python and JavaScript. We compare BBCFixer on BBCBench with two baselines: (1) Pure Agent, an agent that receives no upgrade evidence, and (2) BDUpdater, a method that mines library documentation. BBCFixer raises the average pass rate by up to 17% relative to Pure Agent and needs up to 27% fewer agent steps per successful repair. BBCFixer thus provides a way to select the upstream evidence behind a behavioral break, so that an LLM agent can repair behavioral breaking changes more effectively and efficiently.

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.2610.09267

Cites

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

Self-check

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

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

Authors
Chen, J., Bi, T., Wang, Y., & Thongtanunam, P.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7221030368
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
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
dependency updates, Python, JavaScript, 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