Agentic Program Repair from Test Failures at Scale: A Neuro-symbolic approach with static analysis and test execution feedback

TL;DR

This paper presents a neuro-symbolic, agent-based approach for large-scale program repair using LLMs, static analysis, and test feedback, achieving significant automation and efficiency improvements.

Contribution

It introduces an engineering agent that combines LLMs, static analysis, and symbolic reasoning for automated program repair at scale, with a novel feedback loop and evaluation benchmarks.

Findings

Specialized 70B model performs competitively with larger models.

ReAct harness benefits from static analysis and test traces.

42.3% solve rate with 11.8 feedback iterations on benchmarks.

Abstract

Aim: With the advent of LLMs, sophisticated agentic program repair has become viable at large organizations with large codebases. In this work, we develop an Engineering Agent that fixes the source code based on test failures at scale across diverse software offerings internally. Method: Using Llama as the base, we employ the ReAct harness to develop an agent. We start with a test failure that was triaged by a rule-based test failure bot. We then set up an agentic harness and allow the agent to reason and run a set of 15 actions from reading a file to generating a patch. We provide feedback to the agent through static analysis and test failures so it can refine its solution. We leverage an LLM-as-a-Judge to ensure that the patch conforms to the standards followed by a human review to land fixes. Benchmark Findings: We curated offline benchmarks for our patch generator, the Engineering Agent loop, and the LLM-as-a-Judge. In offline evaluations we found that a specialized 70B model is highly competitive with the much larger but vanilla Llama-405B. In an ablation study, we found that the ReAct harness (neural model) benefited from the symbolic information from static analysis tools and test execution traces. A model that strikes a balance between the solve rate and error rate vs the cost and latency has a benchmark solve rate of 42.3% using an average 11.8 feedback iterations. Production Findings: In a three month period, 80% of the generated fixes were reviewed, of which 31.5% were landed (25.5% of the total number of generated fixes). Feedback from Engineers: We used open coding to extract qualitative themes from engineers' feedback. We saw positive feedback in the form of quick approvals, gratitude, and surprise. We also found mixed feedback when the Engineering Agent's solution was partially correct and it served as a good starting point.