arXiv subjects

Gabriele Bavota

Publications and source records attributed to Gabriele Bavota.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Enhancing Code Understanding for Impact Analysis by Combining Transformers and Program Dependence Graphs

Impact analysis (IA) is a critical software maintenance task that identifies the effects of a given set of code changes on a larger software project with the intention of avoiding potential adverse effects. IA is a cognitively challenging task that involves reasoning about the abstract relationships between various code constructs. Given its difficulty, researchers have worked to automate IA with approaches that primarily use coupling metrics as a measure of the "connectedness" of different parts of a software project. Many of these coupling metrics rely on static, dynamic, or evolutionary information and are based on heuristics that tend to be brittle, require expensive execution analysis, or large histories of co-changes to accurately estimate impact sets. In this paper, we introduce a novel IA approach, called Athena, that combines a software system's dependence graph information with a conceptual coupling approach that uses advances in deep representation learning for code without the need for change histories and execution information. Previous IA benchmarks are small, containing fewer than ten software projects, and suffer from tangled commits, making it difficult to measure accurate results. Therefore, we constructed a large-scale IA benchmark, called Alexandria, from 25 open-source software projects, that utilizes fine-grained commit information from bug fixes. On this new benchmark, our best-performing approach configuration achieves mRR, mAP, and HIT@10 scores of 60.32%, 35.19%, and 81.48%, respectively. Through various ablations and qualitative analyses, we show that Athena's novel combination of program dependence graphs and conceptual coupling information leads it to outperform a simpler baseline by 10.34%, 9.55%, and 11.68% with statistical significance.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Writing Bug Reports for Software Repair Agents: What Information Matters Most?

Software development is increasingly moving toward agentic-first workflows. This includes AI agents responsible for generating initial fixes for submitted issue reports. In this setting, issue reports are no longer merely documentation for human maintainers; they become the primary task specification for the agent. However, little is known about how such reports should be written to maximize the agent's chances of producing a correct fix. We study what makes a bug report agent-ready. Starting from the SWE-bench Verified benchmark (i.e., a collection of 500 real repository issues with human-written gold patches and test suites for evaluating generated fixes) we manually classify each issue by change type (e.g., bug fix vs refactoring) and annotate each sentence with its information type, such as observed behavior, expected behavior, reproduction steps, localization cues, and suggested fixes. We focus on the 441 issues representing bug reports, and we run on them mini-swe-agent using three LLM backbones (i.e., GPT-5-mini, MiniMax M2.5, and Gemini 3 Flash). We then fit a binomial regression model to estimate the incremental association between each information type and agent success, controlling for confounding factors. Our results suggest that agentic-first reports benefit most from information that narrows the agent's search and repair space. Localization cues, such as references to affected code areas, are positively associated with successful repairs, while suggested fixes, expressed either in code or natural language, show some of the strongest positive associations with pass probability. An ablation study removing selected information types confirms that agents benefit less from information traditionally useful to humans, such as reproduction steps, and more from sentences that expose a repair direction, either through bug localization or a suggested fix.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Teaching LLMs a Low-Resource Language: Enhancing Code Completion in Pharo

Large Language Models (LLMs) unlocked new possibilities in automated code writing, becoming the backbone of most code completion tools. While LLMs excel in mainstream languages, they often lack support for the so-called low-resource languages where training data is scarce. As a result, these languages lag behind in the quality of code completion tooling available to their communities. A concrete example is Pharo, a Smalltalk-inspired language whose IDE currently offers only single-token completion. In this work, we report on our experience bringing LLM-based code completion to Pharo. First, we describe an end-to-end pipeline that combines Pharo-specific data curation, continued pre-training and fine-tuning of open code LLMs. Second, we introduce a set of Pharo code completion benchmarks designed to evaluate whether models (i) learn Pharo's syntax and (ii) accurately complete masked Pharo code from real-world GitHub repositories. Third, we show empirically that Pharo-specialized models substantially outperform their original base checkpoints and also exceed the accuracy of substantially larger code LLMs on Pharo completion. Overall, our case study demonstrates the feasibility of bringing strong LLM-based code completion to low-resource programming languages, with models small enough to provide ``real-time'' in-IDE support.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

No Resource, No Benchmarks, No Problem? Evaluating and Improving LLMs for Code Generation in No-Resource Languages

Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly advanced the automation of software engineering tasks. One prominent example is code generation, where an LLM produces code in a specified programming language based on a natural language description. Most research in this area has focused on high-resource languages, such as Python or Java, which benefit from abundant training data. A smaller body of work has explored low-resource languages, which are underrepresented in training corpora. In contrast, no-resource languages for which LLMs have seen virtually no training data remain largely unstudied. These languages often emerge in industry, where organizations develop proprietary or domain-specific languages unsupported by commercial tools like GitHub Copilot. This results in the need for companies to deploy their own in-house code recommenders. To investigate possible solutions in this context, we build and release three code generation benchmarks for no-resource languages, based on two recently proposed programming languages for which very little training data is available. Using these benchmarks, we experiment several solutions to teach LLMs about no-resource languages, including prompt-based techniques as well as pre-training and fine-tuning exploiting the little data available. While further pre-training gives the largest performance gains for no-resource languages, applying it directly to instruction-tuned models harms their ability to follow instructions. To address this, we start from a base model, further pre-training it on the target language, and then inject instruction-following capabilities via weight diff transfer from an instruction model. Such an approach significantly improves code generation capabilities in no-resource settings, allowing companies to cheaply deploy a specialized instruct model without dealing with the computational cost of instruction fine-tuning.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Developers and Generative AI: A Study of Self-Admitted Usage in Open Source Projects

The availability of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools such as ChatGPT or GitHub Copilot is reshaping the way in which software is developed, evolved, and maintained. Oftentimes, developers leave traces of such an usage in software artifacts. This allows not only to understand how AI is used in software development, but also to let others be aware how such software artifacts were created, e.g., for licensing or trustworthiness purposes. This paper-building upon our preliminary work presented at MSR 2024-aims at qualitatively investigating on the self-admitted use of two very popular generative AI tools - ChatGPT and GitHub Copilot - in software development. To this aim, we mined GitHub for such traces, by looking at commits, issues and pull requests (PRs). Then, through a manual coding, we create a taxonomy of 64 different ChatGPT and GitHub Copilot usage tasks, grouped into 7 categories. By repeating our previous analysis two years after and by extending it to GitHub Copilot, we show how the usage avenues have been expanded, the extent to which developers perceived such a generative AI usage useful, and whether some concerns occurring more than one year ago are no longer present. The taxonomy of tasks we derived from such a qualitative study provided (i) developers with valuable insights into how generative AI can be integrated into their workflows, and (ii) researchers with a clear overview of tasks that developers perceive as well-suited for automation.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Improving Code Generation via Small Language Model-as-a-judge

Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable capabilities in automated code generation. While effective for mainstream languages, they may underperform on less common or domain-specific languages, prompting companies to develop in-house code generators. While open-source models can be trained for this, only LLMs with tens of billions of parameters match the performance of commercial tools, demanding costly training and deployment. Recent work proposed supporting code generation with smaller models (SLMs) by generating multiple candidate solutions and using another SLM to select the most likely correct one. The most recent work in this area is the one by Sun et al. [29] presenting RankEF, a T5 model trained to rank code solutions using both execution-based and non-execution-based information. However, Sun et al. do not assess the T5 ranker's classification accuracy, that is, how often it misjudges correct implementations as incorrect or vice versa, leaving open questions about the reliability of LMs as code correctness judges for other tasks (e.g., automated code review). Moreover, their experiments involve relatively old models, making it unclear the extent to which such a methodology would still help companies in cheaply training their own code generators with performance comparable to those of massive LLMs. We present a study addressing these limitations. We train several state-of-the-art SLMs as code correctness judges and assess their ability to discriminate between correct and wrong implementations. We show that modern SLMs outperform RankEF, even without exploiting execution-based information. When used as code rankers, they achieve higher performance gains than RankEF and perform competitively with LLMs 5-25x larger, at a fraction of the cost.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Studying Quality Improvements Recommended via Manual and Automated Code Review

Several Deep Learning (DL)-based techniques have been proposed to automate code review. Still, it is unclear the extent to which these approaches can recommend quality improvements as a human reviewer. We study the similarities and differences between code reviews performed by humans and those automatically generated by DL models, using ChatGPT-4 as representative of the latter. In particular, we run a mining-based study in which we collect and manually inspect 739 comments posted by human reviewers to suggest code changes in 240 PRs. The manual inspection aims at classifying the type of quality improvement recommended by human reviewers (e.g., rename variable/constant). Then, we ask ChatGPT to perform a code review on the same PRs and we compare the quality improvements it recommends against those suggested by the human reviewers. We show that while, on average, ChatGPT tends to recommend a higher number of code changes as compared to human reviewers (~2.4x more), it can only spot 10% of the quality issues reported by humans. However, ~40% of the additional comments generated by the LLM point to meaningful quality issues. In short, our findings show the complementarity of manual and AI-based code review. This finding suggests that, in its current state, DL-based code review can be used as a further quality check on top of the one performed by humans, but should not be considered as a valid alternative to them nor as a mean to save code review time, since human reviewers would still need to perform their manual inspection while also validating the quality issues reported by the DL-based technique.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Guidelines to Prompt Large Language Models for Code Generation: An Empirical Characterization

Large Language Models (LLMs) are nowadays extensively used for various types of software engineering tasks, primarily code generation. Previous research has shown how suitable prompt engineering could help developers in improving their code generation prompts. However, so far, there do not exist specific guidelines driving developers towards writing suitable prompts for code generation. In this work, we derive and evaluate development-specific prompt optimization guidelines. First, we use an iterative, test-driven approach to automatically refine code generation prompts, and we analyze the outcome of this process to identify prompt improvement items that lead to test passes. We use such elements to elicit 10 guidelines for prompt improvement, related to better specifying I/O, pre-post conditions, providing examples, various types of details, or clarifying ambiguities. We conduct an assessment with 50 practitioners, who report their usage of the elicited prompt improvement patterns, as well as their perceived usefulness, which does not always correspond to the actual usage before knowing our guidelines. Our results lead to implications not only for practitioners and educators, but also for those aimed at creating better LLM-aided software development tools.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

SATORI: Static Test Oracle Generation for REST APIs

REST API test case generation tools are evolving rapidly, with growing capabilities for the automated generation of complex tests. However, despite their strengths in test data generation, these tools are constrained by the types of test oracles they support, often limited to crashes, regressions, and noncompliance with API specifications or design standards. This paper introduces SATORI (Static API Test ORacle Inference), a black-box approach for generating test oracles for REST APIs by analyzing their OpenAPI Specification. SATORI uses large language models to infer the expected behavior of an API by analyzing the properties of the response fields of its operations, such as their name and descriptions. To foster its adoption, we extended the PostmanAssertify tool to automatically convert the test oracles reported by SATORI into executable assertions. Evaluation results on 17 operations from 12 industrial APIs show that SATORI can automatically generate up to hundreds of valid test oracles per operation. SATORI achieved an F1-score of 74.3%, outperforming the state-of-the-art dynamic approach AGORA+ (69.3%)-which requires executing the API-when generating comparable oracle types. Moreover, our findings show that static and dynamic oracle inference methods are complementary: together, SATORI and AGORA+ found 90% of the oracles in our annotated ground-truth dataset. Notably, SATORI uncovered 18 bugs in popular APIs (Amadeus Hotel, Deutschebahn, FDIC, GitLab, Marvel, OMDb and Vimeo) leading to documentation updates by the API maintainers.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

On the Effectiveness of LLM-as-a-judge for Code Generation and Summarization

Large Language Models have been recently exploited as judges for complex natural language processing tasks, such as Q&A. The basic idea is to delegate to an LLM the assessment of the "quality" of the output provided by an automated technique for tasks for which: (i) quantitative metrics would only tell part of the story, and; (ii) a large-scale human-based evaluation would be too expensive. LLMs-as-a-judge, if proven effective for a specific task, can also unlock new possibilities for automation, with several LLMs proposing a solution for a given instance of the task and others judging and deciding what is the best output to show the user. We study the effectiveness of LLMs-as-a-judge for two code-related tasks, namely code generation and code summarization. The rationale for choosing these tasks is two-fold. First, quantitative metrics are usually not enough for the assessment of code summarizers/generators. For example, it is well documented that metrics such as BLEU are quite weak proxies for the quality of the generated summaries. Second, even state-of-the-art techniques still struggle with handling complex instances of these tasks, making them good candidates for benefiting from more advanced solutions envisioning collaboration among LLMs. For code generation, we check whether eight LLMs are able to judge the correctness of 1,405 Java methods and 1,281 Python functions generated by the same LLMs or implemented by humans. For code summarization, we compare the judgment of five LLMs to those provided by nine humans for ~1.2k summaries, related to both Java and Python functions. Our findings show that GPT-4-turbo is the best LLM in terms of judging capabilities for both tasks, with "smaller" LLMs featuring tens of billions parameters not being able to cope with judging tasks. However, even the best-performing LLM frequently misjudges the correctness of the code and summary quality.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

Leveraging Reward Models for Guiding Code Review Comment Generation

Code review is a crucial component of modern software development, involving the evaluation of code quality, providing feedback on potential issues, and refining the code to address identified problems. Despite these benefits, code review can be rather time consuming, and influenced by subjectivity and human factors. For these reasons, techniques to (partially) automate the code review process have been proposed in the literature. Among those, the ones exploiting deep learning (DL) are able to tackle the generative aspect of code review, by commenting on a given code as a human reviewer would do (i.e., comment generation task) or by automatically implementing code changes required to address a reviewer's comment (i.e., code refinement task). In this paper, we introduce CoRAL, a deep learning framework automating review comment generation by exploiting reinforcement learning with a reward mechanism considering both the semantics of the generated comments as well as their usefulness as input for other models automating the code refinement task. The core idea is that if the DL model generates comments that are semantically similar to the expected ones or can be successfully implemented by a second model specialized in code refinement, these comments are likely to be meaningful and useful, thus deserving a high reward in the reinforcement learning framework. We present both quantitative and qualitative comparisons between the comments generated by CoRAL and those produced by the latest baseline techniques, highlighting the effectiveness and superiority of our approach.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

How do Copilot Suggestions Impact Developers' Frustration and Productivity?

Context. AI-based development tools, such as GitHub Copilot, are transforming the software development process by offering real-time code suggestions. These tools promise to improve the productivity by reducing cognitive load and speeding up task completion. Previous exploratory studies, however, show that developers sometimes perceive the automatic suggestions as intrusive. As a result, they feel like their productivity decreased. Theory. We propose two theories on the impact of automatic suggestions on frustration and productivity. First, we hypothesize that experienced developers are frustrated from automatic suggestions (mostly from irrelevant ones), and this also negatively impacts their productivity. Second, we conjecture that novice developers benefit from automatic suggestions, which reduce the frustration caused from being stuck on a technical problem and thus increase their productivity. Objective. We plan to conduct a quasi-experimental study to test our theories. The empirical evidence we will collect will allow us to either corroborate or reject our theories. Method. We will involve at least 32 developers, both experts and novices. We will ask each of them to complete two software development tasks, one with automatic suggestions enabled and one with them disabled, allowing for within-subject comparisons. We will measure independent and dependent variables by monitoring developers' actions through an IDE plugin and screen recording. Besides, we will collect physiological data through a wearable device. We will use statistical hypothesis tests to study the effects of the treatments (i.e., automatic suggestions enabled/disabled) on the outcomes (frustration and productivity).

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

Why Personalizing Deep Learning-Based Code Completion Tools Matters

Deep learning (DL)-based code completion tools have transformed software development by enabling advanced code generation. These tools leverage models trained on vast amounts of code from numerous repositories, capturing general coding patterns. However, the impact of fine-tuning these models for specific organizations or developers to boost their performance on such subjects remains unexplored. In this work, we fill this gap by presenting solid empirical evidence answering this question. More specifically, we consider 136 developers from two organizations (Apache and Spring), two model architectures (T5 and Code Llama), and three model sizes (60M, 750M, and 7B trainable parameters). T5 models (60M, 750M) were pre-trained and fine-tuned on over 2,000 open-source projects, excluding the subject organizations' data, and compared against versions fine-tuned on organization- and developer-specific datasets. For the Code Llama model (7B), we compared the performance of the already pre-trained model publicly available online with the same model fine-tuned via parameter-efficient fine-tuning on organization- and developer-specific datasets. Our results show that there is a boost in prediction capabilities provided by both an organization-specific and a developer-specific additional fine-tuning, with the former being particularly performant. Such a finding generalizes across (i) the two subject organizations (i.e., Apache and Spring) and (ii) models of completely different magnitude (from 60M to 7B trainable parameters). Finally, we show that DL models fine-tuned on an organization-specific dataset achieve the same completion performance of pre-trained code models used out of the box and being $\sim$10$\times$ larger, with consequent savings in terms of deployment and inference cost (e.g., smaller GPUs needed).

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

Quality In, Quality Out: Investigating Training Data's Role in AI Code Generation

Deep Learning-based code generators have seen significant advancements in recent years. Tools such as GitHub Copilot are used by thousands of developers with the main promise of a boost in productivity. However, researchers have recently questioned their impact on code quality showing, for example, that code generated by DL-based tools may be affected by security vulnerabilities. Since DL models are trained on large code corpora, one may conjecture that low-quality code they output is the result of low-quality code they have seen during training. However, there is very little empirical evidence documenting this phenomenon. Indeed, most of previous work look at the frequency with which commercial code generators recommend low-quality code without the possibility of relating this to their training set. We investigate the extent to which low-quality code instances seen during training affect the quality of the code generated at inference time. We start by fine-tuning a pre-trained DL model on a large-scale dataset being representative of those usually adopted in the training of code generators. We show that 4.98% of functions in this dataset exhibit one or more quality issues related to security, maintainability, best practices, etc. We use the fine-tuned model to generate 551k Python functions, showing that 5.85% of them are affected by at least one quality issue. We then remove from the training set the low-quality functions, and use the cleaned dataset to fine-tune a second model which has been used to generate the same 551k Python functions. We show that the model trained on the cleaned dataset exhibits similar performance in terms of functional correctness as compared to the original model while, however, generating a statistically significant lower number of low-quality functions (2.16%). Our study empirically documents the importance of high-quality training data for code generators.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

Automating Code Review: A Systematic Literature Review

Code Review consists in assessing the code written by teammates with the goal of increasing code quality. Empirical studies documented the benefits brought by such a practice that, however, has its cost to pay in terms of developers' time. For this reason, researchers have proposed techniques and tools to automate code review tasks such as the reviewers selection (i.e., identifying suitable reviewers for a given code change) or the actual review of a given change (i.e., recommending improvements to the contributor as a human reviewer would do). Given the substantial amount of papers recently published on the topic, it may be challenging for researchers and practitioners to get a complete overview of the state-of-the-art. We present a systematic literature review (SLR) featuring 119 papers concerning the automation of code review tasks. We provide: (i) a categorization of the code review tasks automated in the literature; (ii) an overview of the under-the-hood techniques used for the automation, including the datasets used for training data-driven techniques; (iii) publicly available techniques and datasets used for their evaluation, with a description of the evaluation metrics usually adopted for each task. The SLR is concluded by a discussion of the current limitations of the state-of-the-art, with insights for future research directions.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

Investigating Execution-Aware Language Models for Code Optimization

Code optimization is the process of enhancing code efficiency, while preserving its intended functionality. This process often requires a deep understanding of the code execution behavior at run-time to identify and address inefficiencies effectively. Recent studies have shown that language models can play a significant role in automating code optimization. However, these models may have insufficient knowledge of how code execute at run-time. To address this limitation, researchers have developed strategies that integrate code execution information into language models. These strategies have shown promise, enhancing the effectiveness of language models in various software engineering tasks. However, despite the close relationship between code execution behavior and efficiency, the specific impact of these strategies on code optimization remains largely unexplored. This study investigates how incorporating code execution information into language models affects their ability to optimize code. Specifically, we apply three different training strategies to incorporate four code execution aspects -- line executions, line coverage, branch coverage, and variable states -- into CodeT5+, a well-known language model for code. Our results indicate that execution-aware models provide limited benefits compared to the standard CodeT5+ model in optimizing code.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

Evaluating the Impact of Post-Training Quantization on Large Language Models for Code Generation

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown an impressive capability in code generation. The LLM effectiveness generally increases with its size: The higher the number of LLM's trainable parameters the better its ability to implement code. However, when it comes to deploying LLM-based code generators, larger LLMs pose significant challenges related to their memory (and, consequently, carbon) footprint. A previous work by Wei et al. proposed to leverage quantization techniques to reduce the memory footprint of LLM-based code generators without substantially degrading their effectiveness. In short, they studied LLMs featuring up to 16B parameters, quantizing their precision from floating point 32 bits down to int 8 bits and showing their limited impact on code generation performance. Given the fast pace at which LLM capabilities and quantization techniques are evolving, in this work we present a differentiated replication of the work by Wei et al. in which we consider (i) on the one side, more recent and larger code-related LLMs, of up to 34B parameters; (ii) the latest advancements in model quantization techniques, which allow pushing the compression to the extreme quantization level of 2 bits per model parameter and; (iii) different types of calibration datasets to guide the quantization process, including code-specific ones. Our empirical evaluation reveals that the new frontier for LLM quantization is 4-bit precision, resulting in an average memory footprint reduction of 70% compared to the original model without observing any significant decrease in performance. Additionally, when the quantization becomes even more extreme (3 and 2 bits), a code-specific calibration dataset helps to limit the loss of performance.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

Enhancing Code Generation for Low-Resource Languages: No Silver Bullet

The advent of Large Language Models (LLMs) has significantly advanced the field of automated code generation. LLMs rely on large and diverse datasets to learn syntax, semantics, and usage patterns of programming languages. For low-resource languages (i.e., niche programming languages characterized by the scarcity of training data), the limited availability of such data hampers the models' ability to generalize effectively, resulting in poorer code generation performance as compared to high-resource languages. For this reason, there is a quest for techniques able to close this performance gap. We present an empirical study investigating the effectiveness of several approaches for boosting LLMs' performance on low-resource languages, namely: (i) a classic fine-tuning, which is however capped in size by the scarcity of training data; (ii) three variants of in-context learning, with prompts crafted to provide the LLM with additional information about the low-resource language (e.g., few-shot examples showcasing features of the targeted language); and (iii) a pre-training objective teaching the model how to translate between high- and low-resource languages. The context of our study are two low-resource languages (R and Racket) and six LLMs having different architectures and sizes. Our findings reveal that a fine-tuning is usually the best choice for smaller LLMs, possibly due to the fact that even a small dataset is sufficient to train their limited number of parameters. With the increase in size of the models, in-context learning becomes more and more effective, representing a safe and cheap bet (i.e., it always helps, but with different magnitudes). Differently, very large LLMs may deteriorate their performance on low-resource languages when fine-tuning is performed, possibly due to the lack of enough data needed to effectively update their weights.

cs.SE↗