# Evaluating the Generalizability of LLMs in Automated Program Repair

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.09217 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.09217/

## Key facts

- Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 28 of its 43 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 12 Mar 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 28 of 28)

- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03374/) (2021)
- [Qwen Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.16609/) (2023)
- [Is Your Code Generated by ChatGPT Really Correct? Rigorous Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.01210/) (2023)
- [DeepSeek-Coder: When the Large Language Model Meets Programming -- The Rise of Code Intelligence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.14196/) (2024)
- [Magicoder: Empowering Code Generation with OSS-Instruct](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.02120/) (2023)
- [OpenCodeInterpreter: Integrating Code Generation with Execution and Refinement](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.14658/) (2024)
- [A Survey on Recent Advances in LLM-Based Multi-turn Dialogue Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.18013/) (2024)
- [Practical Program Repair in the Era of Large Pre-trained Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.14179/) (2022)
- [Keep the Conversation Going: Fixing 162 out of 337 bugs for 0.42 each using ChatGPT](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.00385/) (2023)
- [Benchmarking Benchmark Leakage in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.18824/) (2024)
- [Impact of Code Language Models on Automated Program Repair](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.05020/) (2023)
- [Less Training, More Repairing Please: Revisiting Automated Program Repair via Zero-shot Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.08281/) (2022)
- [EvoCodeBench: An Evolving Code Generation Benchmark Aligned with Real-World Code Repositories](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.00599/) (2024)
- [DevEval: A Manually-Annotated Code Generation Benchmark Aligned with Real-World Code Repositories](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.19856/) (2024)
- [TBar: Revisiting Template-based Automated Program Repair](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1903.08409/) (2019)
- [A Syntax-Guided Edit Decoder for Neural Program Repair](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.08253/) (2021)
- [RepairLLaMA: Efficient Representations and Fine-Tuned Adapters for Program Repair](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.15698/) (2023)
- [WaveCoder: Widespread And Versatile Enhancement For Code Large Language Models By Instruction Tuning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.14187/) (2023)
- [Top Leaderboard Ranking = Top Coding Proficiency, Always? EvoEval: Evolving Coding Benchmarks via LLM](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.19114/) (2024)
- [A Critical Review of Large Language Model on Software Engineering: An Example from ChatGPT and Automated Program Repair](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.08879/) (2023)
- [GAMMA: Revisiting Template-based Automated Program Repair via Mask Prediction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.09308/) (2023)
- [ThinkRepair: Self-Directed Automated Program Repair](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.20898/) (2024)
- [How Far Can We Go with Practical Function-Level Program Repair?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.12833/) (2024)
- [KNOD: Domain Knowledge Distilled Tree Decoder for Automated Program Repair](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.01857/) (2023)
- [On Inter-dataset Code Duplication and Data Leakage in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.07930/) (2024)
- [Code Difference Guided Adversarial Example Generation for Deep Code Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.02412/) (2023)
- [Revisiting the Plastic Surgery Hypothesis via Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.10494/) (2023)

## Built on by (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [RustMizan: A Compilable, Contamination-Aware Benchmarking Framework for Rust Vulnerabilities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.04729/) (2026)
- [Rethinking Automated Program Repair: The Impact of Bug Complexity, Fault Localization, and LLM Cost-efficiency](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.14065/) (2026)
- [A Metamorphic Testing Approach to Diagnosing Memorization in LLM-Based Program Repair](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.21579/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

LLM-based automated program repair methods have attracted significant attention for their state-of-the-art performance. However, they were primarily evaluated on a few well known datasets like Defects4J, raising questions about their effectiveness on new datasets. In this study, we evaluate 11 top-performing LLMs on DEFECTS4J-TRANS, a new dataset derived from transforming Defects4J while maintaining the original semantics. Results from experiments on both Defects4J and DEFECTS4J-TRANS show that all studied LLMs have limited generalizability in APR tasks, with the average number of correct and plausible patches decreasing by 49.48% and 42.90%, respectively, on DEFECTS4J-TRANS. Further investigation into incorporating additional repair-relevant information in repair prompts reveals that, although this information significantly enhances the LLMs' capabilities (increasing the number of correct and plausible patches by up to 136.67% and 121.82%, respectively), performance still falls short of their original results. This indicates that prompt engineering alone is insufficient to substantially enhance LLMs' repair capabilities. Based on our study, we also offer several recommendations for future research.