Reflections on the Reproducibility of Commercial LLM Performance in Empirical Software Engineering Studies
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Large Language Models have gained remarkable interest in industry and academia. The increasing interest in LLMs in academia is also reflected in the number of publications on this topic over the last years. For instance, alone 78 of the around 425 publications at ICSE 2024 performed experiments with LLMs. Conducting empirical studies with LLMs remains challenging and raises questions on how to achieve reproducible results, for both researchers and practitioners. One important step towards excelling in empirical research on LLM and their application is to first understand to what extent current research results are eventually reproducible and what factors may impede reproducibility. This investigation is within the scope of our work. We contribute an analysis of the reproducibility of LLM-centric studies, provide insights into the factors impeding reproducibility, and discuss suggestions on how to improve the current state. In particular, we studied the 85 articles describing LLM-centric studies, published at ICSE 2024 and ASE 2024. Of the 85 articles, 18 provided research artefacts and used OpenAI models. We attempted to replicate those 18 studies. Of the 18 studies, only five were sufficiently complete and executable. For none of the five studies, we were able to fully reproduce the results. Two studies seemed to be partially reproducible, and three studies did not seem to be reproducible. Our results highlight not only the need for stricter research artefact evaluations but also for more robust study designs to ensure the reproducible value of future publications.
Key facts. Cited by 12 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 36 of its 80 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Oct 2025.
Builds on
36 of 80 references.
References · 36
- 2023Harnessing the Power of LLMs in Practice: A Survey on ChatGPT and Beyondcited by 409
- 2023Large Language Models for Software Engineering: A Systematic Literature Reviewcited by 389
- 2025PaperBench: Evaluating AI's Ability to Replicate AI Researchcited by 286
- 2023How is ChatGPT's behavior changing over time?cited by 265
- 2023Large Language Models for Software Engineering: Survey and Open Problemscited by 178
- 2023Software Testing with Large Language Models: Survey, Landscape, and Visioncited by 163
- 2023An Empirical Study of the Non-determinism of ChatGPT in Code Generationcited by 134
- 2024To Believe or Not to Believe Your LLMcited by 120
- 2024The Good, The Bad, and The Greedy: Evaluation of LLMs Should Not Ignore Non-Determinismcited by 113
- 2023Automatic Semantic Augmentation of Language Model Prompts (for Code Summarization)cited by 72
- 2023Large Language Models are Few-Shot Summarizers: Multi-Intent Comment Generation via In-Context Learningcited by 71
- 2023Towards an Understanding of Large Language Models in Software Engineering Taskscited by 67
24 more
- 2024A Survey of Uncertainty Estimation in LLMs: Theory Meets Practicecited by 54
- 2024Large Language Model for Vulnerability Detection: Emerging Results and Future Directionscited by 44
- 2024Towards Reproducible LLM Evaluation: Quantifying Uncertainty in LLM Benchmark Scorescited by 25
- 2021A large-scale study on research code quality and executioncited by 22
- 2023Domain Knowledge Matters: Improving Prompts with Fix Templates for Repairing Python Type Errorscited by 22
- 2023(Why) Is My Prompt Getting Worse? Rethinking Regression Testing for Evolving LLM APIscited by 21
- 2020The Fundamental Principles of Reproducibilitycited by 17
- 2020On the Replicability and Reproducibility of Deep Learning in Software Engineeringcited by 16
- 2023Exploring ChatGPT for Toxicity Detection in GitHubcited by 15
- 2024Towards Evaluation Guidelines for Empirical Studies involving LLMscited by 14
- 2024PyTy: Repairing Static Type Errors in Pythoncited by 10
- 2024A Reproducibility and Generalizability Study of Large Language Models for Query Generationcited by 10
- 2024A Looming Replication Crisis in Evaluating Behavior in Language Models? Evidence and Solutionscited by 8
- 2025Studying How Configurations Impact Code Generation in LLMs: the Case of ChatGPTcited by 8
- 2024Semantic Sleuth: Identifying Ponzi Contracts via Large Language Modelscited by 7
- 2022Paving the Way for Mature Secondary Research: The Seven Types of Literature Reviewcited by 6
- 2023CrashTranslator: Automatically Reproducing Mobile Application Crashes Directly from Stack Tracecited by 6
- 2025Measuring Determinism in Large Language Models for Software Code Reviewcited by 6
- 2024ChatGPT Incorrectness Detection in Software Reviewscited by 5
- 2020Understanding and Improving Artifact Sharing in Software Engineering Researchcited by 4
- 2024FAIL: Analyzing Software Failures from the News Using LLMscited by 3
- 2023An Empirical Study on Compliance with Ranking Transparency in the Software Documentation of EU Online Platformscited by 2
- 2024Requirements Quality Research Artifacts: Recovery, Analysis, and Management Guidelinecited by 1
- 2024PatUntrack: Automated Generating Patch Examples for Issue Reports without Tracked Insecure Codecited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 12.
12 papers.
- 2026Autonomous Research Agents: A Survey of AI Scientists and the Verification Gapcited by 6
- 2026Revisiting Vul-RAG: Reproducibility and Replicability of RAG-based Vulnerability Detection with Open-Weight Modelscited by 2
- 2026Reasoning effort, not tool access, buys first-try reliability in agentic code generation: an observational studycited by 2
- 2026Beyond Accuracy: LLM Variability in Evidence Screening for Software Engineering SLRscited by 1
- 2026How Much Static Structure Do Code Agents Need? A Study of Deterministic Anchoringcited by 1
- 2026Large Databases Need Small, Open-Weight Language Modelscited by 1
- 2026Agent-Based Software Artifact Evaluationcited by 0
- 2026Referential Security as a New Paradigm for AI Evaluationscited by 0
- 2026DFAH-Bench: Benchmarking Observable Agent Instability in Financial Decision-Makingcited by 0
- 2026From Backlog Items to Security Guidance: Towards Continuous Security Compliancecited by 0
- 2026Model Retirement Creates Reproducibility Risk in Biomedical AI Publicationscited by 0
- 2026How Reproducible Are Evaluation Conclusions? A Self-Audit of LLM-Inferred Prompt Structurecited by 0
- 2026How Reproducible Are Evaluation Conclusions? A Self-Audit of LLM-Inferred Prompt Structure24 Sep 2026
- 2026Model Retirement Creates Reproducibility Risk in Biomedical AI Publications4 Sep 2026
- 2026From Backlog Items to Security Guidance: Towards Continuous Security Compliance29 Jul 2026
- 2026Reasoning effort, not tool access, buys first-try reliability in agentic code generation: an observational study2 Jul 2026
- 2026Large Databases Need Small, Open-Weight Language Models30 Jun 2026
- 2026Autonomous Research Agents: A Survey of AI Scientists and the Verification Gap29 Jun 2026
- 2026How Much Static Structure Do Code Agents Need? A Study of Deterministic Anchoring25 Jun 2026
- 2026DFAH-Bench: Benchmarking Observable Agent Instability in Financial Decision-Making10 Jun 2026
- 2026Revisiting Vul-RAG: Reproducibility and Replicability of RAG-based Vulnerability Detection with Open-Weight Models3 Jun 2026
- 2026Referential Security as a New Paradigm for AI Evaluations25 May 2026
- 2026Beyond Accuracy: LLM Variability in Evidence Screening for Software Engineering SLRs29 Apr 2026
- 2026Agent-Based Software Artifact Evaluation2 Feb 2026