PofoliaShared via Pofolia

ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology· 2026Q1

A Survey of LLM-based Software Repair: Taxonomies, Design Paradigms, and Applications

Boyang Yang, Zijian Cai, Fenglin Liu, Bach Le et al.

Short summary

A new taxonomy classifies 66 LLM-based software repair systems based on where repair capability and control logic reside, revealing distinctions in adaptation, generation, and control mechanisms.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Key points

  • A hierarchical taxonomy classifies 66 LLM-based software repair systems based on control logic location.
  • Systems are categorized by adaptation methods: task-adapted parameters, prompt/context design, designer-specified workflows, or LLM-directed runtime control.
  • The survey analyzes benchmark usage, including variants, metrics, base models, and fault-localization assumptions.
  • Key trade-offs in task alignment, deployment cost, controllability, and multi-hunk/cross-file repair are clarified.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are reshaping automated program repair. We present a reproducible hierarchical taxonomy that organizes 66 LLM-based repair systems according to where repair capability and control logic principally reside: taskadapted parameters, prompt and context design, designer-specified workflows, or LLM-directed runtime control. Adaptation, generation pattern, runtime control, and auxiliary evidence remain separate coded dimensions. This representation exposes control distinctions hidden by utilization labels and supports cross-paradigm analysis of system design and evaluation evidence. To the best of our knowledge, it is the first publicly available LLM-based software repair survey to operationalize Fine-Tuning, Prompting, Procedural, and Agentic as one corpus-wide primary classification. Our hierarchy complements prior surveys with a single corpus-wide primary decision rule, while the result-level protocol audit bounds which reported results are defensibly comparable. To analyze how repair systems use benchmarks, we record benchmark variants, metrics, base models, and fault-localization assumptions for each system’s primary reported result, identifying protocol-aligned comparison windows and benchmark-family fragments. We clarify paradigm trade-offs in task alignment, deployment cost, controllability, and multi-hunk or cross-file repair. We outline open challenges and research directions. Our artifacts and scripted survey pipeline are publicly available at https://github.com/GLEAM-Lab/ProgramRepair .

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 2026 · DOI ↗

TakeawaysPremium
Ask the paperFree account

Continue with a free account

Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.

Continue free on the web

Sign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.

On your phone:

Field: Software

SoftwareComputer Science