mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

LLM-Based Detection of Tangled Code Changes for Higher-Quality Method-Level Bug Datasets

arXiv 2505.08263 ↗First posted 13 May 2025cs.SEcited by 3

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Tangled code changes, commits that conflate unrelated modifications such as bug fixes, refactorings, and enhancements, introduce significant noise into bug datasets and adversely affect the performance of bug prediction models. Addressing this issue at a fine-grained, method-level granularity remains unexplored. This is critical to address, as recent bug prediction models, driven by practitioner demand, are increasingly focusing on finer granularity rather than traditional class- or file-level predictions. This study investigates the utility of Large Language Models (LLMs) for detecting tangled code changes by leveraging both commit messages and method-level code diffs. We formulate the problem as a binary classification task and evaluate multiple prompting strategies, including zero-shot, few-shot, and chain-of-thought prompting, using state-of-the-art proprietary LLMs such as GPT-5 and Gemini-2.0-Flash, and open-source models such as GPT-OSS-120B and CodeBERT. Our results demonstrate that combining commit messages with code diffs significantly enhances model performance, with the combined few-shot and chain-of-thought prompting achieving an F1-score of 0.883. Additionally, we explore machine learning models trained on LLM-generated embeddings, where a multi-layer perceptron classifier achieves superior performance (F1-score: 0.906, MCC: 0.807). Applying our approach to 49 open-source projects improves the distributional separability of code metrics between buggy and non-buggy methods, demonstrating the promise of LLMs for method-level commit untangling and potentially contributing to improving the accuracy of future bug prediction models.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 13 May 2025.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 2; 2026: 1.

3 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025CodeFuse-CommitEval: Towards Benchmarking LLM's Power on Commit Message and Code Change Inconsistency Detection
  2. 2026Large Language Models for Programming: Actually Fixing or Reimplementing Incorrect Code?
  3. 2025Large Language Model Critics for Execution-Free Evaluation of Code Changes
  4. 2026If It's Not Buggy, Don't Fix It: On the Dynamics of Iterative Bug-fixing with LLMs
  5. 2026Model See, Model Do? Exposure-Aware Evaluation of Bug-vs-Fix Preference in Code LLMs
  6. 2026Beyond Strict Rules: Assessing the Effectiveness of Large Language Models for Code Smell Detection ↗
  7. 2026AgentSZZ: Teaching the LLM Agent to Play Detective with Bug-Inducing Commits
  8. 2026AdaptEval: A Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models on Code Snippet Adaptation