Towards A Human-in-the-Loop Framework for Reliable Patch Evaluation using an LLM-as-a-Judge
Abstract
Reliable evaluation is crucial for advancing Automated Program Repair (APR), but prevailing benchmarks that rely on execution-based evaluation methods (pass@k) often fail to capture the patch quality required for real-world adoption. This creates a significant gap between automated metrics and true patch validity (valid@k), a discrepancy observed across several state-of-the-art techniques.
To develop a scalable solution for measuring valid@k, we first study the human evaluation process itself. While manual assessment can determine validity, we find it suffers from poor inter-rater reliability (Fleiss' Kappa k=0.307). Our foundational insight is that this inconsistency is largely resolved when evaluators use a shared, high-quality rubric, which significantly improves agreement.
Building on this finding, we propose an LLM-as-a-Judge framework that operationalizes rubric-guided evaluation at scale. Our method employs a human-in-the-loop workflow where an LLM first generates a candidate rubric for a given bug, which a human expert then reviews and refines into a "golden" evaluation standard. This golden rubric is then used by an LLM judge to assess the validity of candidate patches. In an evaluation on 48 bugs and 115 patches, our LLM judge demonstrates substantial agreement with the consensus of human developers. This work contributes a scalable and reliable methodology for approximating valid@k, providing a much-needed high-fidelity signal for measuring true progress in the field of automated program repair.
To develop a scalable solution for measuring valid@k, we first study the human evaluation process itself. While manual assessment can determine validity, we find it suffers from poor inter-rater reliability (Fleiss' Kappa k=0.307). Our foundational insight is that this inconsistency is largely resolved when evaluators use a shared, high-quality rubric, which significantly improves agreement.
Building on this finding, we propose an LLM-as-a-Judge framework that operationalizes rubric-guided evaluation at scale. Our method employs a human-in-the-loop workflow where an LLM first generates a candidate rubric for a given bug, which a human expert then reviews and refines into a "golden" evaluation standard. This golden rubric is then used by an LLM judge to assess the validity of candidate patches. In an evaluation on 48 bugs and 115 patches, our LLM judge demonstrates substantial agreement with the consensus of human developers. This work contributes a scalable and reliable methodology for approximating valid@k, providing a much-needed high-fidelity signal for measuring true progress in the field of automated program repair.
Research Areas
