Can LLMs be Effective Code Contributors? A Study on Open-source Projects

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.23340v1
• Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2026 15:00:14 GMT
• Title: Can LLMs be Effective Code Contributors? A Study on Open-source Projects
• Abstract summary: We present an approach that exposes the shortcomings of LLM generation on such projects.<n>We apply the framework to 212 commits in eight popular open-source projects and three LLMs.<n>The success rate varied from 0% to 60% depending on the project.
• Score: 0.3425341633647625
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: LLM-generated code is widely used, and the share of committed code produced by LLMs is expected to increase. However, we are not at a point where LLMs can be effective contributors to production code. We present an approach that exposes the shortcomings of LLM generation on such projects, and proposes recommendations; the targets of our study are sizable open-source projects, e.g., FFmpeg and wolfSSL. First, we developed a framework that uses verification and validation to evaluate a given LLM's suitability to fix or add features to an existing project. Second, we apply the framework to 212 commits (bug fixes and small feature improvements) in eight popular open-source projects and three LLMs: GPT-4o, Ministral3, and Qwen3-Coder. The success rate varied from 0% to 60% depending on the project. The LLMs failed in a variety of ways, from generating syntactically incorrect code, to producing code that fails basic (static) verification, or validation via the project's test suite. In particular, the LLMs struggle with generating new code, handling contexts (function or file) outside a certain size range, and in many cases their success is due to parroting code changes they have been trained on.

Related papers

• An Exploratory Study on LLM-Generated Code and Comments in Code Repositories [6.161007996548193]
  We study the code and comments detected as likely to be generated by LLMs and their characteristics.<n>We conduct experiments on active company- and community-maintained repositories from 2021 to 2025.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-02T08:25:15Z)
• An Experimental Study of Real-Life LLM-Proposed Performance Improvements [2.503024366864326]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) can generate code, but can they generate fast code?<n>We study this question using a dataset of 65 real-world tasks mined from open-source Java programs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-17T10:06:52Z)
• The Fools are Certain; the Wise are Doubtful: Exploring LLM Confidence in Code Completion [4.215010577170175]
  We evaluate the confidence of Large Language Models (LLMs) when generating code by measuring code perplexity.<n>We find that strongly-typed languages exhibit lower perplexity than dynamically typed languages.<n> Perl appears universally high in perplexity, whereas Java appears low.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-22T06:51:13Z)
• On the Effectiveness of LLM-as-a-judge for Code Generation and Summarization [54.965787768076254]
  Large Language Models have been recently exploited as judges for complex natural language processing tasks, such as Q&A.<n>We study the effectiveness of LLMs-as-a-judge for two code-related tasks, namely code generation and code summarization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-22T13:40:26Z)
• Can LLMs Replace Humans During Code Chunking? [2.4056836012742]
  Large language models (LLMs) have become essential tools in computer science, especially for tasks involving code understanding and generation.<n>This paper examines the application of LLMs in the modernization of legacy government code written in ALC and MUMPS.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-24T13:02:35Z)
• An Empirical Study of Many-to-Many Summarization with Large Language Models [82.10000188179168]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown strong multi-lingual abilities, giving them the potential to perform Many-to-many summarization (M2MS) in real applications.<n>This work presents a systematic empirical study on LLMs' M2MS ability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-19T11:18:54Z)
• Combining LLM Code Generation with Formal Specifications and Reactive Program Synthesis [0.7580487359358722]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) struggle with accuracy and are unsuitable for high-risk applications. We introduce a solution that divides the code generation into two parts; one to be handled by an LLM and one to be handled by formal methods-based program synthesis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-18T15:59:06Z)
• What's Wrong with Your Code Generated by Large Language Models? An Extensive Study [92.62952504133926]
  This study evaluated the performance of three leading closed-source LLMs and six popular open-source LLMs on three commonly used benchmarks.<n>We developed a taxonomy of bugs for incorrect codes and analyzed the root cause for common bug types.<n>We propose a novel training-free iterative method that introduces self-critique, enabling LLMs to critique and correct their generated code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-08T17:27:17Z)
• DevEval: A Manually-Annotated Code Generation Benchmark Aligned with Real-World Code Repositories [83.5195424237358]
  Existing benchmarks are poorly aligned with real-world code repositories. We propose a new benchmark named DevEval, which has three advances. DevEval comprises 1,874 testing samples from 117 repositories, covering 10 popular domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-30T09:03:42Z)
• Iterative Refinement of Project-Level Code Context for Precise Code Generation with Compiler Feedback [29.136378191436396]
  We present CoCoGen, a new code generation approach that uses compiler feedback to improve the LLM-generated code. CoCoGen first leverages static analysis to identify mismatches between the generated code and the project's context. It then iteratively aligns and fixes the identified errors using information extracted from the code repository.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-25T14:07:27Z)
• Knowledge Fusion of Large Language Models [73.28202188100646]
  This paper introduces the notion of knowledge fusion for large language models (LLMs) We externalize their collective knowledge and unique strengths, thereby elevating the capabilities of the target model beyond those of any individual source LLM. Our findings confirm that the fusion of LLMs can improve the performance of the target model across a range of capabilities such as reasoning, commonsense, and code generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-19T05:02:46Z)
• LLM360: Towards Fully Transparent Open-Source LLMs [89.05970416013403]
  The goal of LLM360 is to support open and collaborative AI research by making the end-to-end training process transparent and reproducible by everyone. As a first step of LLM360, we release two 7B parameter LLMs pre-trained from scratch, Amber and CrystalCoder, including their training code, data, intermediate checkpoints, and analyses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-11T17:39:00Z)
• ML-Bench: Evaluating Large Language Models and Agents for Machine Learning Tasks on Repository-Level Code [76.84199699772903]
  ML-Bench is a benchmark rooted in real-world programming applications that leverage existing code repositories to perform tasks. To evaluate both Large Language Models (LLMs) and AI agents, two setups are employed: ML-LLM-Bench for assessing LLMs' text-to-code conversion within a predefined deployment environment, and ML-Agent-Bench for testing autonomous agents in an end-to-end task execution within a Linux sandbox environment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T12:03:21Z)

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.