mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

A Critical Review of Large Language Model on Software Engineering: An Example from ChatGPT and Automated Program Repair

arXiv 2310.08879 ↗First posted 13 Oct 2023cs.SEcited by 29

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Large Language Models (LLMs) have been gaining increasing attention and demonstrated promising performance across a variety of Software Engineering (SE) tasks, such as Automated Program Repair (APR), code summarization, and code completion. For example, ChatGPT, the latest black-box LLM, has been investigated by numerous recent research studies and has shown impressive performance in various tasks. However, there exists a potential risk of data leakage since these LLMs are usually close-sourced with unknown specific training details, e.g., pre-training datasets. In this paper, we seek to review the bug-fixing capabilities of ChatGPT on a clean APR benchmark with different research objectives. We first introduce benchmark, a new benchmark with buggy and the corresponding fixed programs from competitive programming problems starting from 2023, after the training cutoff point of ChatGPT. The results on benchmark show that ChatGPT is able to fix 109 out of 151 buggy programs using the basic prompt within 35 independent rounds, outperforming state-of-the-art LLMs CodeT5 and PLBART by 27.5% and 62.4% prediction accuracy. We also investigate the impact of three types of prompts, i.e., problem description, error feedback, and bug localization, leading to additional 34 fixed bugs. Besides, we provide additional discussion from the interactive nature of ChatGPT to illustrate the capacity of a dialog-based repair workflow with 9 additional fixed bugs. Inspired by the findings, we further pinpoint various challenges and opportunities for advanced SE study equipped with such LLMs (e.g.,~ChatGPT) in the near future. More importantly, our work calls for more research on the reevaluation of the achievements obtained by existing black-box LLMs across various SE tasks, not limited to ChatGPT on APR.

Key facts. Cited by 29 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 13 Oct 2023.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2023: 2; 2024: 16; 2025: 7; 2026: 4.

29 papers.

Sort:

By area:

  1. 2024From LLMs to LLM-based Agents for Software Engineering: A Survey of Current, Challenges and Futurecited by 86
  2. 2024DebugBench: Evaluating Debugging Capability of Large Language Modelscited by 76
  3. 2023RepairLLaMA: Efficient Representations and Fine-Tuned Adapters for Program Repaircited by 50
  4. 2024Source Code Summarization in the Era of Large Language Modelscited by 31
  5. 2024VersiCode: Towards Version-controllable Code Generationcited by 17
  6. 2024CigaR: Cost-efficient Program Repair with LLMscited by 15
  7. 2024AI-enhanced Collective Intelligencecited by 10
  8. 2023Turbulence: Systematically and Automatically Testing Instruction-Tuned Large Language Models for Codecited by 9
  9. 2024ESALE: Enhancing Code-Summary Alignment Learning for Source Code Summarizationcited by 8
  10. 2024Can GPT-O1 Kill All Bugs? An Evaluation of GPT-Family LLMs on QuixBugscited by 7
  11. 2025Exploring Large Language Models for Semantic Analysis and Categorization of Android Malwarecited by 6
  12. 2025IFEvalCode: Controlled Code Generationcited by 5
17 more
  1. 2025Improving Deep Assertion Generation via Fine-Tuning Retrieval-Augmented Pre-trained Language Modelscited by 4
  2. 2025Benchmarking AI Models in Software Engineering: A Review, Search Tool, and Unified Approach for Elevating Benchmark Qualitycited by 4
  3. 2024Chain of Targeted Verification Questions to Improve the Reliability of Code Generated by LLMscited by 3
  4. 2025Evaluating the Generalizability of LLMs in Automated Program Repaircited by 3
  5. 2025Multilingual Multimodal Software Developer for Code Generationcited by 3
  6. 2026LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems for Code Generation: A Multi-Vocal Literature Reviewcited by 3
  7. 2024An Empirical Study on Self-correcting Large Language Models for Data Science Code Generationcited by 2
  8. 2024FuzzCoder: Byte-level Fuzzing Test via Large Language Modelcited by 2
  9. 2025Improving Retrieval-Augmented Deep Assertion Generation via Joint Trainingcited by 2
  10. 2026Precise Debugging Benchmark: Is Your Model Debugging or Regenerating?cited by 2
  11. 2024A GPT-based Code Review System for Programming Language Learningcited by 1
  12. 2024Exploring the Potential of Conversational Test Suite Based Program Repair on SWE-benchcited by 1
  13. 2024Creating and Repairing Robot Programs in Open-World Domainscited by 1
  14. 2024What You See Is Not Always What You Get: Evaluating GPT's Comprehension of Source Codecited by 1
  15. 2024Can OpenSource beat ChatGPT? -- A Comparative Study of Large Language Models for Text-to-Code Generationcited by 0
  16. 2026The New Compiler Stack: A Survey on the Synergy of LLMs and Compilerscited by 0
  17. 2026A Metamorphic Testing Approach to Diagnosing Memorization in LLM-Based Program Repaircited by 0