arXiv subjects

Ali Reza Ibrahimzada

Publications and source records attributed to Ali Reza Ibrahimzada.

8 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

ReCodeAgent: A Multi-agent Workflow for Language-Agnostic Translation and Validation of Large-Scale Repositories

Most repository-level code translation and validation techniques have been evaluated on a single source-target programming language (PL) pair, owing to the complex engineering effort required to adapt new PL pairs. Programming agents can enable PL-agnosticism in repository-level code translation and validation: they can synthesize code across many PLs and autonomously use existing tools specific to each PL's analysis. However, state-of-the-art has yet to offer a fully autonomous agentic approach for repository-level code translation and validation of large-scale programs. This paper proposes ReCodeAgent, an autonomous multi-agent approach for language-agnostic repository-level code translation and validation. Users only need to provide the project in the source PL and specify the target PL for ReCodeAgent to automatically translate and validate the entire repository. ReCodeAgent is the first technique to achieve high translation success rates across many PLs. We compare the effectiveness of ReCodeAgent with four alternative neuro-symbolic and agentic approaches to translate 118 real-world projects, with 1,975 LoC and 43 translation units for each project, on average. The projects cover 6 PLs and 4 PL pairs. Our results demonstrate that ReCodeAgent consistently outperforms prior techniques on translation correctness, improving test pass rate by 60.8% on ground-truth tests, with an average cost of $15.3. We also perform process-centric analysis of ReCodeAgent trajectories to confirm its procedural efficiency. Finally, we investigate how the design choices (a multi-agent vs. single-agent architecture) influence ReCodeAgent performance: on average, the test pass rate drops by 40.4%, and trajectories become 28% longer and persistently inefficient.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

MatchFixAgent: Language-Agnostic Autonomous Repository-Level Code Translation Validation and Repair

Code translation transforms source code from one programming language (PL) to another. Validating the functional equivalence of translation and repairing, if necessary, are critical steps in code translation. Existing automated validation and repair approaches struggle to generalize to many PLs due to high engineering overhead, and they rely on existing and often inadequate test suites, which results in false claims of equivalence and ineffective translation repair. To bridge this gap, we develop MatchFixAgent, a large language model (LLM)-based, PL-agnostic framework for equivalence validation and repair of translations. MatchFixAgent features a multi-agent architecture that divides equivalence validation into several sub-tasks to ensure thorough and consistent semantic analysis of the translation. We compare MatchFixAgent's validation and repair results with four repository-level code translation techniques. Our results demonstrate that MatchFixAgent produces (in)equivalence verdicts for 99.2% of translation pairs, with the same equivalence validation result as prior work on 72.8% of them. When MatchFixAgent's result disagrees with prior work, we find that 60.7% of the time MatchFixAgent's result is actually correct. In addition, we show that MatchFixAgent can repair 50.6% of inequivalent translation, compared to prior work's 18.5%.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

Advancing Automated In-Isolation Validation in Repository-Level Code Translation

Repository-level code translation aims to migrate entire repositories across programming languages while preserving functionality automatically. Despite advancements in repository-level code translation, validating the translations remains challenging. This paper proposes TRAM, which combines context-aware type resolution with mock-based in-isolation validation to achieve high-quality translations between programming languages. Prior to translation, TRAM retrieves API documentation and contextual code information for each variable type in the source language. It then prompts a large language model (LLM) with retrieved contextual information to resolve type mappings across languages with precise semantic interpretations. Using the automatically constructed type mapping, TRAM employs a custom serialization/deserialization workflow that automatically constructs equivalent mock objects in the target language. This enables each method fragment to be validated in isolation, without the high cost of using agents for translation validation, or the heavy manual effort required by existing approaches that rely on language interoperability. TRAM demonstrates state-of-the-art performance in Java-to-Python translation, underscoring the effectiveness of its integration of RAG-based type resolution with reliable in-isolation validation.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

Challenging Bug Prediction and Repair Models with Synthetic Bugs

Bugs are essential in software engineering; many research studies in the past decades have been proposed to detect, localize, and repair bugs in software systems. Effectiveness evaluation of such techniques requires complex bugs, i.e., those that are hard to detect through testing and hard to repair through debugging. From the classic software engineering point of view, a hard-to-repair bug differs from the correct code in multiple locations, making it hard to localize and repair. Hard-to-detect bugs, on the other hand, manifest themselves under specific test inputs and reachability conditions. These two objectives, i.e., generating hard-to-detect and hard-to-repair bugs, are mostly aligned; a bug generation technique can change multiple statements to be covered only under a specific set of inputs. However, these two objectives are conflicting for learning-based techniques: A bug should have a similar code representation to the correct code in the training data to challenge a bug prediction model to distinguish them. The hard-to-repair bug definition remains the same but with a caveat: the more a bug differs from the original code, the more distant their representations are and easier to be detected. We propose BugFarm, to transform arbitrary code into multiple complex bugs. BugFarm leverages LLMs to mutate code in multiple locations (hard-to-repair). To ensure that multiple modifications do not notably change the code representation, BugFarm analyzes the attention of the underlying model and instructs LLMs to only change the least attended locations (hard-to-detect). Our comprehensive evaluation of 435k+ bugs from over 1.9M mutants generated by BUGFARM and two alternative approaches demonstrates our superiority in generating bugs that are hard to detect by learning-based bug prediction approaches and hard-to-repair by state-of-the-art learning-based program repair technique.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

AlphaTrans: A Neuro-Symbolic Compositional Approach for Repository-Level Code Translation and Validation

Code translation transforms programs from one programming language (PL) to another. Several rule-based transpilers have been designed to automate code translation between different pairs of PLs. However, the rules can become obsolete as the PLs evolve and cannot generalize to other PLs. Recent studies have explored the automation of code translation using Large Language Models (LLMs). One key observation is that such techniques may work well for crafted benchmarks but fail to generalize to the scale and complexity of real-world projects with dependencies, custom types, PL-specific features, etc. We propose AlphaTrans, a neuro-symbolic approach to automate repository-level code translation. AlphaTrans translates both source and test code, and employs multiple levels of validation to ensure the translation preserves the functionality of the source program. To break down the problem for LLMs, AlphaTrans leverages program analysis to decompose the program into fragments and translates them in the reverse call order. We leveraged AlphaTrans to translate ten real-world open-source projects consisting of <836, 8575, 2719> classes, methods, and tests. AlphaTrans breaks down these projects into 17874 fragments and translates the entire repository. 96.40% of the translated fragments are syntactically correct, and AlphaTrans validates the translations' runtime behavior and functional correctness for 27.03% and 25.14% of fragments. On average, the integrated translation and validation take 34 hours to translate a project, showing its scalability in practice. For the incorrect translations, AlphaTrans generates a report including existing translation, stack trace, test errors, or assertion failures. We provided these artifacts to two developers to fix the translation bugs in four projects. They were able to fix the issues in 20.1 hours on average and achieve all passing tests.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2024

Program Decomposition and Translation with Static Analysis

The rising popularity of Large Language Models (LLMs) has motivated exploring their use in code-related tasks. Code LLMs with more than millions of parameters are trained on a massive amount of code in different Programming Languages (PLs). Such models are used for automating various Software Engineering (SE) tasks using prompt engineering. However, given the very large size of industry-scale project files, a major issue of these LLMs is their limited context window size, motivating the question of "Can these LLMs process very large files and can we effectively perform prompt engineering?". Code translation aims to convert source code from one PL to another. In this work, we assess the effect of method-level program decomposition on context window of LLMs and investigate how this approach can enable translation of very large files which originally could not be done due to out-of-context issue. Our observations from 20 well-known java projects and approximately 60K methods suggest that method-level program decomposition significantly improves the limited context window problem of LLMs by 99.5%. Furthermore, our empirical analysis indicate that with method-level decomposition, each input fragment on average only consumes 5% of the context window, leaving more context space for prompt engineering and the output. Finally, we investigate the effectiveness of a Call Graph (CG) approach for translating very large files when doing method-level program decomposition.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2024

Lost in Translation: A Study of Bugs Introduced by Large Language Models while Translating Code

Code translation aims to convert source code from one programming language (PL) to another. Given the promising abilities of large language models (LLMs) in code synthesis, researchers are exploring their potential to automate code translation. The prerequisite for advancing the state of LLM-based code translation is to understand their promises and limitations over existing techniques. To that end, we present a large-scale empirical study to investigate the ability of general LLMs and code LLMs for code translation across pairs of different languages, including C, C++, Go, Java, and Python. Our study, which involves the translation of 1,700 code samples from three benchmarks and two real-world projects, reveals that LLMs are yet to be reliably used to automate code translation -- with correct translations ranging from 2.1% to 47.3% for the studied LLMs. Further manual investigation of unsuccessful translations identifies 15 categories of translation bugs. We also compare LLM-based code translation with traditional non-LLM-based approaches. Our analysis shows that these two classes of techniques have their own strengths and weaknesses. Finally, insights from our study suggest that providing more context to LLMs during translation can help them produce better results. To that end, we propose a prompt-crafting approach based on the symptoms of erroneous translations; this improves the performance of LLM-based code translation by 5.5% on average. Our study is the first of its kind, in terms of scale and breadth, that provides insights into the current limitations of LLMs in code translation and opportunities for improving them. Our dataset -- consisting of 1,700 code samples in five PLs with 10K+ tests, 43K+ translated code, 1,748 manually labeled bugs, and 1,365 bug-fix pairs -- can help drive research in this area.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2023

Perfect is the enemy of test oracle

Automation of test oracles is one of the most challenging facets of software testing, but remains comparatively less addressed compared to automated test input generation. Test oracles rely on a ground-truth that can distinguish between the correct and buggy behavior to determine whether a test fails (detects a bug) or passes. What makes the oracle problem challenging and undecidable is the assumption that the ground-truth should know the exact expected, correct, or buggy behavior. However, we argue that one can still build an accurate oracle without knowing the exact correct or buggy behavior, but how these two might differ. This paper presents SEER, a learning-based approach that in the absence of test assertions or other types of oracle, can determine whether a unit test passes or fails on a given method under test (MUT). To build the ground-truth, SEER jointly embeds unit tests and the implementation of MUTs into a unified vector space, in such a way that the neural representation of tests are similar to that of MUTs they pass on them, but dissimilar to MUTs they fail on them. The classifier built on top of this vector representation serves as the oracle to generate "fail" labels, when test inputs detect a bug in MUT or "pass" labels, otherwise. Our extensive experiments on applying SEER to more than 5K unit tests from a diverse set of open-source Java projects show that the produced oracle is (1) effective in predicting the fail or pass labels, achieving an overall accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 measure of 93%, 86%, 94%, and 90%, (2) generalizable, predicting the labels for the unit test of projects that were not in training or validation set with negligible performance drop, and (3) efficient, detecting the existence of bugs in only 6.5 milliseconds on average.

cs.SE↗