Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automated Program Repair (APR) has made significant strides in recent years, particularly with the integration of large language models (LLMs) and deep learning techniques. Yet despite this progress, one fundamental issue continues to hinder advancement: how we evaluate these systems. Many of today’s APR benchmarks suffer from serious limitations—including small dataset sizes, synthetic or unrealistic bug scenarios, overfitting risks, ambiguous evaluation criteria, and a narrow focus on certain programming languages.In this paper, we take a critical look at these challenges by identifying eight core limitations in widely used benchmarks. We then explore how LLM-generated benchmarks can help overcome these obstacles. Finally, we address some potential concerns about LLM-generated benchmarks and propose a quality assurance and validation framework.By combining the strengths of LLMs with thoughtful benchmark design, this work lays the foundation for more robust, diverse, and meaningful evaluation frameworks—paving the way for future breakthroughs in APR research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.027 | 0.190 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".