arXiv:2611.10837v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Tests guide automated program repair and determine which candidate patches are reported as successful. Repository-level coding agents extend this feedback loop by generating tests and revising code after observing execution results. This technical report introduces a five-dimensional evidence profile and reporting protocol to audit how test observations support patch-correctness claims across classical repair systems and coding agents. We assemble an audit dataset of 39 benchmark and evaluation artifacts: 32 primary empirical studies, one institutional technical audit, and six prior taxonomic baselines. We code the 33 primary contributions along five dimensions: test provenance and exposure, behavioral scope, oracle basis and dependence, execution integrity, and label adjudication. The central distinction separates checks visible during repair search from evidence reserved for final assessment. Four worked comparative audits show how changed candidate populations, oracle rules, or execution budgets alter reported detection rates. Additional tests can expose missed faults while rejecting valid alternatives or reducing correct-repair yield under a fixed budget. Repository-level audits separate issue reproduction from candidate-patch discrimination and distinguish automated discrepancy detection from requirements-based adjudication. An evidence matrix links each coded decision to supporting passages and records shared benchmark ancestry. We specify a reporting protocol for repair benchmarks and maintenance pipelines that retains uncertain judgments and records validation cost alongside fault detection and valid-patch retention.
Continue to arXiv Software Engineering →You are being forwarded in 6s — stay on this page