Patching as Translation: the Data and the Metaphor
Yangruibo Ding, Baishakhi Ray, Premkumar T. Devanbu, Vincent J. Hellendoorn
Abstract
Machine Learning models from other fields, like Computational Linguistics, have been transplanted to Software Engineering tasks, often quite successfully. Yet a transplanted model's initial success at a given task does not necessarily mean it is well-suited for the task. In this work, we examine a common example of this phenomenon: the conceit that "software patching is like language translation". We demonstrate empirically that there are subtle, but critical distinctions between sequence-to-sequence models and translation model: while program repair benefits greatly from the former, general modeling architecture, it actually suffers from design decisions built into the latter, both in terms of translation accuracy and diversity. Given these findings, we demonstrate how a more principled approach to model design, based on our empirical findings and general knowledge of software development, can lead to better solutions. We propose several models that leverage the same machine learning tools, but whose architecture, data presentation, and metrics are specialized for the software engineering task. The resulting models perform significantly better than the studied baseline, especially in more program repair appropriate metrics. Overall, our results demonstrate the merit of studying the intricacies of machine learned models in software engineering: not only can this help elucidate potential issues that may be overshadowed by increases in accuracy; it can also help innovate on these models to raise the state-of-the-art further. We will publicly release our replication data and materials at https://github.com/Anonymousauthors-2020/Patch-as-translation.git . CCS CONCEPTS • Software and its engineering → Software maintenance tools.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Cited by top-tier papers17
- CURE: Code-Aware Neural Machine Translation for Automatic Program RepairNan Jiang, Thibaud Lutellier, Lin TanICSE 2021 · 267 citations
- Retrieval-Based Prompt Selection for Code-Related Few-Shot LearningNoor Nashid, Mifta Sintaha, Ali MesbahICSE 2023 · 156 citations
- Break-It-Fix-It: Unsupervised Learning for Program RepairMichihiro Yasunaga, Percy LiangICML 2021 · 128 citations
- CoditT5: Pretraining for Source Code and Natural Language EditingJiyang Zhang, Sheena Panthaplackel, Pengyu Nie, Junyi Jessy Li et al.ASE 2022 · 81 citations
- CYCLE: Learning to Self-Refine the Code GenerationYangruibo Ding, Marcus J. Min, Gail E. Kaiser, Baishakhi RayOOPSLA 2024 · 35 citations
Builds on2
- Global Relational Models of Source CodeVincent J. Hellendoorn, Charles Sutton, Rishabh Singh, Petros Maniatis et al.ICLR 2020 · 252 citations
- Big code != big vocabulary: open-vocabulary models for source codeRafael-Michael Karampatsis, Hlib Babii, Romain Robbes, Charles Sutton et al.ICSE 2020 · 140 citations
Related papers
- MatchFixAgent: Language-Agnostic Autonomous Repository-Level Code Translation Validation and RepairAli Reza Ibrahimzada, Brandon Paulsen, Reyhaneh Jabbarvand, Joey Dodds et al.ICML 2026 · 9 citations
- Evaluating Representation Learning of Code Changes for Predicting Patch Correctness in Program RepairHaoye Tian, Kui Liu, Abdoul Kader Kaboré, Anil Koyuncu et al.ASE 2020 · 81 citations
- Impact of Code Language Models on Automated Program RepairNan Jiang, Kevin Liu, Thibaud Lutellier, Lin TanICSE 2023 · 164 citations
- Automated Program Repair in the Era of Large Pre-trained Language ModelsChunqiu Steven Xia, Yuxiang Wei, Lingming ZhangICSE 2023 · 321 citations
- Neural Program Repair with Execution-based BackpropagationHe Ye, Matias Martinez, Martin MonperrusICSE 2022 · 146 citations
