FeedbackEval: A Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models in Feedback-Driven Code Repair Tasks

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.06939v1
• Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2025 14:43:08 GMT
• Title: FeedbackEval: A Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models in Feedback-Driven Code Repair Tasks
• Abstract summary: We introduce FeedbackEval, a benchmark for evaluating large language models' feedback comprehension and performance.<n>We conduct a comprehensive empirical study on five state-of-the-art LLMs, including GPT-4o, Claude-3.5, Gemini-1.5, GLM-4, and Qwen2.5.<n>Our results show that structured feedback, particularly in the form of test feedback, leads to the highest repair success rates, while unstructured feedback proves significantly less effective.
• Score: 28.849481030601666
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Code repair is a fundamental task in software development, facilitating efficient bug resolution and software maintenance. Although large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated considerable potential in automated code repair, their ability to comprehend and effectively leverage diverse types of feedback remains insufficiently understood. To bridge this gap, we introduce FeedbackEval, a systematic benchmark for evaluating LLMs' feedback comprehension and performance in code repair tasks. We conduct a comprehensive empirical study on five state-of-the-art LLMs, including GPT-4o, Claude-3.5, Gemini-1.5, GLM-4, and Qwen2.5, to evaluate their behavior under both single-iteration and iterative code repair settings. Our results show that structured feedback, particularly in the form of test feedback, leads to the highest repair success rates, while unstructured feedback proves significantly less effective. Iterative feedback further enhances repair performance, though the marginal benefit diminishes after two or three rounds. Moreover, prompt structure is shown to be critical: incorporating docstrings, contextual information, and explicit guidelines substantially improves outcomes, whereas persona-based, chain-of-thought, and few-shot prompting strategies offer limited benefits in single-iteration scenarios. This work introduces a robust benchmark and delivers practical insights to advance the understanding and development of feedback-driven code repair using LLMs.

Related papers

• Revisiting Feedback-Driven LLM Code Repair: A Replication and Exploratory Java Extension [5.124343690857496]
  This study partially replicates the original study on 394 repair tasks using GPT-4o and Claude 3.5 Sonnet.<n>We construct 100 erroneous repair instances from 50 Java tasks and evaluate feedback effectiveness.<n>Our results show that previous conclusions from Python may be sensitive to benchmark construction, feedback representation, and tooling ecosystem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-31T20:55:41Z)
• Beyond the Traceback: Using LLMs for Adaptive Explanations of Programming Errors [52.619793817715326]
  We present a multi-stage crowdsourced study evaluating skill-targeted, LLM-generated Python error messages.<n>We show that while LLM-rewritten messages significantly improved subjective evaluations, these perceived gains did not translate into statistically significant improvements in objective debug performance.<n>This highlights a critical human-AI complementarity gap: explanations that feel better to users do not necessarily make them more effective debuggers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-21T09:14:28Z)
• Chain-of-Experience for Continual LLM Improvement [57.11645184182825]
  We study how large language models learn from iterative experience at test time.<n>We instantiate Chain-of-Experience (CoE) with diverse feedback mechanisms.<n>Our study shows that leveraging iterative experience consistently outperforms feedback-free baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-18T17:22:54Z)
• Unlocking LLM Code Correction with Iterative Feedback Loops [5.504955093712013]
  This study introduces metrics to evaluate code failures, analyze rectification patterns, and compare the effectiveness of reasoning and non-reasoning models.<n>Results show that reasoning models consistently improve over iterations, substantially outperforming non-reasoning models in leveraging feedback.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-16T04:47:42Z)
• From Restructuring to Stabilization: A Large-Scale Experiment on Iterative Code Readability Refactoring with Large Language Models [5.31828955342405]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for automated code tasks.<n>This article systematically study the capabilities of LLMs for code readability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-25T12:05:25Z)
• Readability-Robust Code Summarization via Meta Curriculum Learning [53.44612630063336]
  In the real world, code is often poorly structured or obfuscated, significantly degrading model performance.<n>We propose RoFTCodeSum, a novel fine-tuning method that enhances the robustness of code summarization against poorly readable code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-09T02:38:24Z)
• RECODE-H: A Benchmark for Research Code Development with Interactive Human Feedback [87.97664892075811]
  We present RECODE-H, a benchmark of 102 tasks from research papers and repositories.<n>It includes structured instructions,unit tests, and a five-level feedback hierarchy to reflect realistic researcher-agent collaboration.<n>We also present ReCodeAgent, a framework that integrates feedback into iterative code generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-07T17:45:35Z)
• RelRepair: Enhancing Automated Program Repair by Retrieving Relevant Code [11.74568238259256]
  RelRepair retrieves relevant project-specific code to enhance automated program repair.<n>We evaluate RelRepair on two widely studied datasets, Defects4J V1.2 and ManySStuBs4J.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-20T14:07:28Z)
• On the Role of Feedback in Test-Time Scaling of Agentic AI Workflows [71.92083784393418]
  Agentic AI (systems that autonomously plan and act) are becoming widespread, yet their task success rate on complex tasks remains low.<n>Inference-time alignment relies on three components: sampling, evaluation, and feedback.<n>We introduce Iterative Agent Decoding (IAD), a procedure that repeatedly inserts feedback extracted from different forms of critiques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-02T17:40:47Z)
• The Lighthouse of Language: Enhancing LLM Agents via Critique-Guided Improvement [49.687224320842105]
  Large language models (LLMs) have recently transformed from text-based assistants to autonomous agents capable of planning, reasoning, and iteratively improving their actions. In this work, we introduce Critique-Guided Improvement (CGI), a novel two-player framework, comprising an actor model that explores an environment and a critic model that generates detailed nature language feedback.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-20T10:42:33Z)
• Studying and Understanding the Effectiveness and Failures of Conversational LLM-Based Repair [3.93048798243871]
  Automated program repair (APR) is designed to automate the process of bug-fixing. Advanced APR techniques powered by conversational language models (LLMs) have exhibited impressive repair abilities. Despite the superiority, conversational APR techniques still fail to repair a large number of bugs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-19T09:39:32Z)
• Automated Refactoring of Non-Idiomatic Python Code: A Differentiated Replication with LLMs [54.309127753635366]
  We present the results of a replication study in which we investigate GPT-4 effectiveness in recommending and suggesting idiomatic actions.<n>Our findings underscore the potential of LLMs to achieve tasks where, in the past, implementing recommenders based on complex code analyses was required.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-28T15:41:54Z)
• Prompting and Fine-tuning Large Language Models for Automated Code Review Comment Generation [5.6001617185032595]
  Large language models pretrained on both programming and natural language data tend to perform well in code-oriented tasks. We fine-tune open-source Large language models (LLM) in parameter-efficient, quantized low-rank fashion on consumer-grade hardware to improve review comment generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-15T12:01:38Z)
• Learning to Refine with Fine-Grained Natural Language Feedback [81.70313509881315]
  We propose looking at refinement with feedback as a composition of three distinct LLM competencies. A key property of the proposed Detect, Critique, Refine ("DCR") method is that the step 2 critique model can give fine-grained feedback about errors. We show that models of different capabilities benefit from refining with DCR on the task of improving factual consistency of document grounded summaries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-02T16:15:01Z)
• CREF: An LLM-based Conversational Software Repair Framework for Programming Tutors [8.415004837059863]
  It is crucial to recognize that existing repair benchmarks may have influenced LLM training data, potentially causing data leakage. Our work assesses the repair performance of 12 LLMs on TutorCode, measuring repair correctness (TOP-5 and AVG-5) and patch precision (RPSR) To fully harness LLMs' conversational capabilities and the benefits of augmented information, we introduce a novel conversational semi-automatic repair framework CREF assisting human tutor.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T03:36:34Z)
• AI-powered Code Review with LLMs: Early Results [10.37036924997437]
  We present a novel approach to improving software quality and efficiency through a Large Language Model (LLM)-based model. Our proposed LLM-based AI agent model is trained on large code repositories. It aims to detect code smells, identify potential bugs, provide suggestions for improvement, and optimize the code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-29T08:27:50Z)
• Towards Coarse-to-Fine Evaluation of Inference Efficiency for Large Language Models [95.96734086126469]
  Large language models (LLMs) can serve as the assistant to help users accomplish their jobs, and also support the development of advanced applications. For the wide application of LLMs, the inference efficiency is an essential concern, which has been widely studied in existing work. We perform a detailed coarse-to-fine analysis of the inference performance of various code libraries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-17T15:57:50Z)
• Improving the Validity of Automatically Generated Feedback via Reinforcement Learning [46.667783153759636]
  We propose a framework for feedback generation that optimize both correctness and alignment using reinforcement learning (RL)<n>Specifically, we use GPT-4's annotations to create preferences over feedback pairs in an augmented dataset for training via direct preference optimization (DPO)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-02T20:25:50Z)
• The Right Prompts for the Job: Repair Code-Review Defects with Large Language Model [15.885824575879763]
  Automatic program repair (APR) techniques have the potential to reduce manual efforts in uncovering and repairing program defects during the code review (CR) process. However, the limited accuracy and considerable time costs associated with existing APR approaches hinder their adoption in industrial practice. Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have enhanced their ability to comprehend natural and programming languages, enabling them to generate patches based on review comments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-29T06:12:15Z)
• Constructive Large Language Models Alignment with Diverse Feedback [76.9578950893839]
  We introduce Constructive and Diverse Feedback (CDF) as a novel method to enhance large language models alignment. We exploit critique feedback for easy problems, refinement feedback for medium problems, and preference feedback for hard problems. By training our model with this diversified feedback, we achieve enhanced alignment performance while using less training data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-10T09:20:14Z)
• Re-Reading Improves Reasoning in Large Language Models [87.46256176508376]
  We introduce a simple, yet general and effective prompting method, Re2, to enhance the reasoning capabilities of off-the-shelf Large Language Models (LLMs) Unlike most thought-eliciting prompting methods, such as Chain-of-Thought (CoT), Re2 shifts the focus to the input by processing questions twice, thereby enhancing the understanding process. We evaluate Re2 on extensive reasoning benchmarks across 14 datasets, spanning 112 experiments, to validate its effectiveness and generality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-12T14:36:23Z)
• Is Self-Repair a Silver Bullet for Code Generation? [68.02601393906083]
  Large language models have shown remarkable aptitude in code generation, but still struggle to perform complex tasks. Self-repair -- in which the model debugs and repairs its own code -- has recently become a popular way to boost performance. We analyze Code Llama, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4's ability to perform self-repair on problems taken from HumanEval and APPS.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-16T15:13:17Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.