Characterizing the Failure Modes of LLMs in Resolving Real-World GitHub Issues

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.12270v1
• Date: Tue, 12 May 2026 15:34:57 GMT
• Title: Characterizing the Failure Modes of LLMs in Resolving Real-World GitHub Issues
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed to resolve real-world GitHub issues.<n>This paper evaluates three state-of-the-art models, i.e., Claude 4.5 Sonnet, Gemini 3 Pro, and GPT-5, on the SWE-bench Verified dataset.<n>We conduct a rigorous manual analysis of the symptoms and root causes underlying 243 failed attempts across 900 total trials.
• Score: 10.34693262597204
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed to resolve real-world GitHub issues. However, despite their potential, the specific failure modes of these models in complex repair tasks remain poorly understood. To characterize how LLM behavior diverges from human developer practices, this paper evaluates three state-of-the-art models, i.e., Claude 4.5 Sonnet, Gemini 3 Pro, and GPT-5, on the SWE-bench Verified dataset. We conduct a rigorous manual analysis of the symptoms and root causes underlying 243 failed attempts across 900 total trials. Our investigation first yields a unified failure taxonomy encompassing five distinct stages of the repair pipeline, within which we categorize typical failure symptoms and their prevalence. Secondly, our findings reveal that for all evaluated LLMs, strategy formulation and logic synthesis constitutes the most error-prone stage, followed by problem understanding, whereas localization exhibits the lowest failure rate. This suggests that LLMs may excel at fault localization, a task traditionally regarded as one of the most formidable challenges in automated program repair. Furthermore, we observe that robustness and operational costs (particularly in failure scenarios) vary significantly across different models. Finally, we uncover the root causes of these failures and propose actionable strategies to mitigate them. A particularly notable finding is that existing evaluation harnesses occasionally misjudge correct patches due to superficial discrepancies or hidden constraints. Collectively, our insights may provide promising directions for enhancing the effectiveness and reliability of LLM-based issue resolution.

Related papers

• METER: Evaluating Multi-Level Contextual Causal Reasoning in Large Language Models [61.33372454250959]
  Contextual causal reasoning is a critical yet challenging capability for Large Language Models.<n>Existing benchmarks fail to ensure context consistency or cover the full causal hierarchy.<n>We pioneer METER to systematically benchmark LLMs across all three levels of the causal ladder.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-13T14:07:11Z)
• Where Do LLMs Still Struggle? An In-Depth Analysis of Code Generation Benchmarks [2.979785960419084]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable success in code generation.<n>We examined code generation tasks across four popular benchmarks, identifying those that major LLMs are most likely to fail.<n>Our analysis revealed four recurring patterns of weaknesses in LLMs, as well as common complications within benchmark tasks that most often lead to failure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-06T13:38:03Z)
• 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)
• Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail? [87.90075668488434]
  We introduce MAST-Data, a comprehensive dataset of 1600+ annotated traces collected across 7 popular MAS frameworks.<n>We build the first Multi-Agent System Failure taxonomy (MAST)<n>We leverage MAST and MAST-Data to analyze failure patterns across models (GPT4, Claude 3, Qwen2.5, CodeLlama) and tasks (coding, math, general agent)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-17T19:04:38Z)
• Mitigating Forgetting in LLM Fine-Tuning via Low-Perplexity Token Learning [65.23593936798662]
  We show that fine-tuning with LLM-generated data improves target task performance and reduces non-target task degradation.<n>This is the first work to provide an empirical explanation based on token perplexity reduction to mitigate catastrophic forgetting in LLMs after fine-tuning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-24T08:18:56Z)
• A Real-World Benchmark for Evaluating Fine-Grained Issue Solving Capabilities of Large Language Models [11.087034068992653]
  FAUN-Eval is a benchmark specifically designed to evaluate the Fine-grAined issUe solviNg capabilities of LLMs.<n>It is constructed using a dataset curated from 30 well-known GitHub repositories.<n>We evaluate ten LLMs with FAUN-Eval, including four closed-source and six open-source models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-27T03:25:44Z)
• Exploring Automatic Cryptographic API Misuse Detection in the Era of LLMs [60.32717556756674]
  This paper introduces a systematic evaluation framework to assess Large Language Models in detecting cryptographic misuses. Our in-depth analysis of 11,940 LLM-generated reports highlights that the inherent instabilities in LLMs can lead to over half of the reports being false positives. The optimized approach achieves a remarkable detection rate of nearly 90%, surpassing traditional methods and uncovering previously unknown misuses in established benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-23T15:31:26Z)
• AutoDetect: Towards a Unified Framework for Automated Weakness Detection in Large Language Models [95.09157454599605]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are becoming increasingly powerful, but they still exhibit significant but subtle weaknesses.<n>Traditional benchmarking approaches cannot thoroughly pinpoint specific model deficiencies.<n>We introduce a unified framework, AutoDetect, to automatically expose weaknesses in LLMs across various tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-24T15:16:45Z)
• RUPBench: Benchmarking Reasoning Under Perturbations for Robustness Evaluation in Large Language Models [12.112914393948415]
  We present RUPBench, a benchmark designed to evaluate large language models (LLMs) across diverse reasoning tasks. Our benchmark incorporates 15 reasoning datasets, categorized into commonsense, arithmetic, logical, and knowledge-intensive reasoning. By examining the performance of state-of-the-art LLMs such as GPT-4o, Llama3, Phi-3, and Gemma on both original and perturbed datasets, we provide a detailed analysis of their robustness and error patterns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-16T17:26:44Z)
• Evaluation and Improvement of Fault Detection for Large Language Models [30.760472387136954]
  This paper investigates the effectiveness of existing fault detection methods for large language models (LLMs) We propose textbfMuCS, a prompt textbfMutation-based prediction textbfConfidence textbfSmoothing framework to boost the fault detection capability of existing methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-14T07:06:12Z)
• Characterization of Large Language Model Development in the Datacenter [55.9909258342639]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have presented impressive performance across several transformative tasks. However, it is non-trivial to efficiently utilize large-scale cluster resources to develop LLMs. We present an in-depth characterization study of a six-month LLM development workload trace collected from our GPU datacenter Acme.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-12T13:31:14Z)
• Competition-Level Problems are Effective LLM Evaluators [121.15880285283116]
  This paper aims to evaluate the reasoning capacities of large language models (LLMs) in solving recent programming problems in Codeforces. We first provide a comprehensive evaluation of GPT-4's peiceived zero-shot performance on this task, considering various aspects such as problems' release time, difficulties, and types of errors encountered. Surprisingly, theThoughtived performance of GPT-4 has experienced a cliff like decline in problems after September 2021 consistently across all the difficulties and types of problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-04T18:58:57Z)

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.