Counterexample Guided Program Repair Using Zero-Shot Learning and MaxSAT-based Fault Localization

TL;DR

This paper introduces a hybrid program repair method combining fault localization and large language models, guided by counterexamples, to improve automated repair of introductory programming assignments.

Contribution

It presents a novel approach integrating MaxSAT-based fault localization with zero-shot LLMs within a CEGIS loop for more effective program repair.

Findings

Significantly improves repair success rates across six LLMs.

Enables LLMs to produce smaller, more precise fixes.

Outperforms existing symbolic program repair tools.

Abstract

Automated Program Repair (APR) for introductory programming assignments (IPAs) is motivated by the large number of student enrollments in programming courses each year. Since providing feedback on IPAs requires substantial time and effort from faculty, personalized feedback often involves suggesting fixes to students' programs. Formal Methods (FM)-based semantic repair approaches, check a program's execution against a test suite or reference solution, are effective but limited. These tools excel at identifying buggy parts but can only fix programs if the correct implementation and the faulty one share the same control flow graph. Conversely, Large Language Models (LLMs) are used for APR but often make extensive instead of minimal rewrites. This leads to more invasive fixes, making it harder for students to learn from their mistakes. In summary, LLMs excel at completing strings, while FM-based fault localization excel at identifying buggy parts of a program. In this paper, we propose a novel approach that combines the strengths of both FM-based fault localization and LLMs, via zero-shot learning, to enhance APR for IPAs. Our method uses MaxSAT-based fault localization to identify buggy parts of a program, then presents the LLM with a program sketch devoid of these buggy statements. This hybrid approach follows a CEGIS loop to iteratively refine the program. We ask the LLM to synthesize the missing parts, which are then checked against a test suite. If the suggested program is incorrect, a counterexample from the test suite is fed back to the LLM. Our experiments show that our counterexample guided approach, using MaxSAT-based bug-free program sketches, significantly improves the repair capabilities of all six evaluated LLMs. This method allows LLMs to repair more programs with smaller fixes, outperforming other configurations and state-of-the-art symbolic program repair tools.