Papers › An Empirical Evaluation of Pre-trained Large Language Models for Repairing Declarative...
An Empirical Evaluation of Pre-trained Large Language Models for Repairing Declarative Formal Specifications
Mohannad Alhanahnah, Md Rashedul Hasan, Lisong Xu, Hamid Bagheri
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
Automatic Program Repair (APR) has garnered significant attention as a practical research domain focused on automatically fixing bugs in programs. While existing APR techniques primarily target imperative programming languages like C and Java, there is a growing need for effective solutions applicable to declarative software specification languages. This paper systematically investigates the capacity of Large Language Models (LLMs) to repair declarative specifications in Alloy, a declarative formal language used for software specification. We designed 12 different repair settings, encompassing single-agent and dual-agent paradigms, utilizing various LLMs. These configurations also incorporate different levels of feedback, including an auto-prompting mechanism for generating prompts autonomously using LLMs. Our study reveals that dual-agent with auto-prompting setup outperforms the other settings, albeit with a marginal increase in the number of iterations and token usage. This dual-agent setup demonstrated superior effectiveness compared to state-of-the-art Alloy APR techniques when evaluated on a comprehensive set of benchmarks. This work is the first to empirically evaluate LLM capabilities to repair declarative specifications, while taking into account recent trending LLM concepts such as LLM-based agents, feedback, auto-prompting, and tools, thus paving the way for future agent-based techniques in software engineering.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections