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

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.25465v1
• Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 20:16:11 GMT
• Title: BloomAPR: A Bloom's Taxonomy-based Framework for Assessing the Capabilities of LLM-Powered APR Solutions
• Authors: Yinghang Ma, Jiho Shin, Leuson Da Silva, Zhen Ming, Jiang, Song Wang, Foutse Khomh, Shin Hwei Tan,
• Abstract summary: We introduce BloomAPR, a novel dynamic evaluation framework grounded in Bloom's taxonomy.<n>Our framework offers a structured approach to assess the cognitive capabilities of LLM-powered APR solutions across progressively complex reasoning levels.<n>Our findings show that while these solutions exhibit basic reasoning skills, their performance increases with synthetically generated bugs.
• Score: 19.682278660857584
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: 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.

Related papers

• Can LLMs Correct Themselves? A Benchmark of Self-Correction in LLMs [57.10533368622962]
  Self-correction of large language models (LLMs) emerges as a critical component for enhancing their reasoning performance.<n>This study introduces CorrectBench, a benchmark developed to evaluate the effectiveness of self-correction strategies.<n>Our findings reveal that: 1) Self-correction methods can improve accuracy, especially for complex reasoning tasks; 2) Mixing different self-correction strategies yields further improvements, though it reduces efficiency; and 3) Reasoning LLMs (e.g., DeepSeek-R1) have limited optimization under additional self-correction methods and have high time costs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-17T02:40:19Z)
• APRMCTS: Improving LLM-based Automated Program Repair with Iterative Tree Search [10.033333633312171]
  APRMCTS incorporates Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) into patch searching by performing a global evaluation of the explored patches and selecting the most promising one for subsequent refinement and generation.<n>Our experiments on 835 bugs from Defects4J demonstrate that, when integrated with GPT-3.5, APRMCTS can fix a total of 201 bugs, which outperforms all state-of-the-art baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-02T15:44:12Z)
• From Empirical Evaluation to Context-Aware Enhancement: Repairing Regression Errors with LLMs [1.078085076551721]
  We conduct an empirical study of APR techniques on Java regression bugs.<n>RegMiner4APR is a benchmark of Java regression bugs collected from 32 widely used real-world Java GitHub repositories.<n>Our results show that classical APR tools fail to repair any bugs, while LLM-based APR approaches exhibit promising potential.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-16T07:49:18Z)
• Critique-GRPO: Advancing LLM Reasoning with Natural Language and Numerical Feedback [59.078756231841574]
  Critique-GRPO is an online RL framework that integrates both natural language and numerical feedback for effective policy optimization.<n>We show Critique-GRPO consistently outperforms supervised learning and RL-based fine-tuning methods across eight challenging mathematical, STEM, and general reasoning tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-03T17:39:02Z)
• Everything You Wanted to Know About LLM-based Vulnerability Detection But Were Afraid to Ask [30.819697001992154]
  Large Language Models are a promising tool for automated vulnerability detection.<n>Despite widespread adoption, a critical question remains: Are LLMs truly effective at detecting real-world vulnerabilities?<n>This paper challenges three widely held community beliefs: that LLMs are (i) unreliable, (ii) insensitive to code patches, and (iii) performance-plateaued across model scales.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-18T05:32:47Z)
• The Dual-use Dilemma in LLMs: Do Empowering Ethical Capacities Make a Degraded Utility? [54.18519360412294]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) must balance between rejecting harmful requests for safety and accommodating legitimate ones for utility.<n>This paper presents a Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) based alignment framework that achieves better overall performance.<n>We analyze experimental results obtained from testing DeepSeek-R1 on our benchmark and reveal the critical ethical concerns raised by this highly acclaimed model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-20T06:35:01Z)
• Self-Evolving Critique Abilities in Large Language Models [59.861013614500024]
  This paper explores enhancing critique abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We introduce SCRIT, a framework that trains LLMs with self-generated data to evolve their critique abilities.<n>Our analysis reveals that SCRIT's performance scales positively with data and model size.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-10T05:51:52Z)
• LLM2: Let Large Language Models Harness System 2 Reasoning [65.89293674479907]
  Large language models (LLMs) have exhibited impressive capabilities across a myriad of tasks, yet they occasionally yield undesirable outputs.<n>We introduce LLM2, a novel framework that combines an LLM with a process-based verifier.<n>LLMs2 is responsible for generating plausible candidates, while the verifier provides timely process-based feedback to distinguish desirable and undesirable outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-29T06:32:36Z)
• Exploring and Lifting the Robustness of LLM-powered Automated Program Repair with Metamorphic Testing [31.327835928133535]
  Large language model-powered Automated Program Repair (LAPR) techniques have achieved state-of-the-art bug-fixing performance.<n>It is crucial to conduct robustness testing on LAPR techniques before their practical deployment.<n>We propose MT-LAPR, a Metamorphic Testing framework exclusively for LAPR techniques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-10T01:14:58Z)
• MAgICoRe: Multi-Agent, Iterative, Coarse-to-Fine Refinement for Reasoning [80.15393178083607]
  Large Language Models' (LLM) reasoning can be improved using test-time aggregation strategies, i.e., generating multiple samples and voting among generated samples.<n> Refinement offers an alternative by using LLM-generated feedback to improve solution quality.<n>We propose MAgICoRe, which avoids excessive refinement by categorizing problem difficulty as easy or hard.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-18T17:12:41Z)
• What's Wrong with Your Code Generated by Large Language Models? An Extensive Study [80.18342600996601]
  Large language models (LLMs) produce code that is shorter yet more complicated as compared to canonical solutions. We develop a taxonomy of bugs for incorrect codes that includes three categories and 12 sub-categories, and analyze the root cause for common bug types. We propose a novel training-free iterative method that introduces self-critique, enabling LLMs to critique and correct their generated code based on bug types and compiler feedback.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-08T17:27:17Z)
• Hybrid Automated Program Repair by Combining Large Language Models and Program Analysis [12.7034916462208]
  Automated Program Repair (APR) has garnered significant attention due to its potential to streamline the bug repair process for human developers. This paper introduces an innovative APR approach called GIANTREPAIR. Based on this insight, GIANTREPAIR first constructs patch skeletons from LLM-generated patches to confine the patch space, and then generates high-quality patches tailored to specific programs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-03T05:05:12Z)

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.