mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

BloomAPR: A Bloom's Taxonomy-based Framework for Assessing the Capabilities of LLM-Powered APR Solutions

arXiv 2509.25465 ↗First posted 29 Sep 2025cs.SEcited by 5

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have accelerated the development of AI-driven automated program repair (APR) solutions. However, these solutions are typically evaluated using static benchmarks such as Defects4J and SWE-bench, which suffer from two key limitations: (1) the risk of data contamination, potentially inflating evaluation results due to overlap with LLM training data, and (2) limited ability to assess the APR capabilities in dynamic and diverse contexts. In this paper, we introduced BloomAPR, a novel dynamic evaluation framework grounded in Bloom's Taxonomy. Our framework offers a structured approach to assess the cognitive capabilities of LLM-powered APR solutions across progressively complex reasoning levels. Using Defects4J as a case study, we evaluated two state-of-the-art LLM-powered APR solutions, ChatRepair and CigaR, under three different LLMs: GPT-3.5-Turbo, Llama-3.1, and StarCoder-2. Our findings show that while these solutions exhibit basic reasoning skills and effectively memorize bug-fixing patterns (fixing up to 81.57% of bugs at the Remember layer), their performance increases with synthetically generated bugs (up to 60.66% increase at the Understand layer). However, they perform worse on minor syntactic changes (fixing up to 43.32% at the Apply layer), and they struggle to repair similar bugs when injected into real-world projects (solving only 13.46% to 41.34% bugs at the Analyze layer). These results underscore the urgent need for evolving benchmarks and provide a foundation for more trustworthy evaluation of LLM-powered software engineering solutions.

Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 29 Sep 2025.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 4.

5 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025T3: Multi-level Tree-based Automatic Program Repair with Large Language Models
  2. 2024ThinkRepair: Self-Directed Automated Program Repair
  3. 2025Towards Effectively Leveraging Execution Traces for Program Repair with Code LLMs
  4. 2026Rethinking Automated Program Repair: The Impact of Bug Complexity, Fault Localization, and LLM Cost-efficiency
  5. 2025Unlocking LLM Repair Capabilities Through Cross-Language Translation and Multi-Agent Refinement
  6. 2025A Survey of LLM-based Automated Program Repair: Taxonomies, Design Paradigms, and Applications
  7. 2024Aligning the Objective of LLM-based Program Repair
  8. 2026Refine After Generation: Toward Correct and Concise Patches in LLM-based Program Repair