Rethinking Automated Program Repair: The Impact of Bug Complexity, Fault Localization, and LLM Cost-efficiency

Fault Localization (FL) is a key component of Large Language Model (LLM)-based Automated Program Repair (APR), yet its impact remains underexplored. In particular, it is unclear how much localization is needed, whether additional context beyond the predicted buggy location is beneficial, and how such context should be retrieved. We conduct a large-scale empirical study on 500 SWE-bench Verified instances using GPT-5-mini, evaluating 61 configurations that vary file-level, element-level, and line-level context. Our results show that more context does not consistently improve repair performance. File-level localization is the dominant factor, yielding a 15-17x improvement over a no-file baseline. Expanding file context is often associated with improved performance, with successful repairs most commonly observed in configurations with approximately 6-10 relevant files. Element-level context expansion provides conditional gains that depend strongly on the file context quality, while line-level context expansion frequently degrades performance due to noise amplification. LLM-based retrieval generally outperforms structural heuristics while using fewer files and tokens. Overall, the most effective FL context strategy typically combines a broad semantic understanding at higher abstraction levels with precise line-level localization. These findings challenge our assumption that increasing the localization context uniformly improves APR, and provide practical guidance for designing LLM-based FL strategies.

Large Language Model (LLM)-based Automated Program Repair systems are advancing rapidly, yet their performance remains inconsistent. Even when provided with the same contextual information, an LLM may generate a correct patch for one bug but fail on another closely related bug. Why this happens remains poorly understood, and it is unclear how LLMs prioritize the diverse information in bug reports and whether model attention affects repair success. In this paper, we present the first empirical study of attention patterns in LLM-based program repair, providing interpretable insights into how models process bug reports and where their attention is concentrated during repair. We analyze 319 real-world Python and Java bugs from SWE-bench Verified and Multi-SWE-bench to study (RQ1) how model attention is distributed across bug report sections, (RQ2) how attention patterns within each section differ between successful and unsuccessful repairs, and (RQ3) how these patterns compare to information developers consider important for bug fixing. We find that successful repairs are characterized by diffused attention across multiple diagnostic components such as bug descriptions, stacktraces, and test cases, while failures often exhibit over-localized attention toward metadata such as version information. We further observe that stronger alignment between model attention and developer-identified key sections and phrases is associated with higher repair success. Our results provide the first empirical evidence that attention misallocation is a key factor in LLM-based APR failures, and offer actionable insights for designing more interpretable and reliable future APR systems.

[...] Since then, various APR approaches, especially those leveraging the power of large language models (LLMs), have been rapidly developed to fix general software bugs. Unfortunately, the effectiveness of these advanced techniques in the context of regression bugs remains largely unexplored. This gap motivates the need for an empirical study evaluating the effectiveness of modern APR techniques in fixing real-world regression bugs. In this work, we conduct an empirical study of APR techniques on regression bugs. To facilitate our study, we introduce RegressionBug4APR, a high-quality benchmark of Java and Python regression bugs integrated into a framework designed to facilitate APR research. The current benchmark includes 200 regression bugs collected from widely used real-world GitHub repositories. We begin by conducting an in-depth analysis of the benchmark, demonstrating its diversity and quality. Building on this foundation, we empirically evaluate the capabilities of APR to regression bugs by assessing both traditional APR tools and advanced LLM-based APR approaches. Our experimental results show that classical APR tools fail to repair any bugs, while LLM-based APR approaches exhibit promising potential. Motivated by these results, we investigate impact of incorporating bug-inducing change information into LLM-based APR approaches for fixing regression bugs. We further conduct an ablation study to disaggregate the contribution of each contextual element within the bug-inducing change information. Our results highlight that this context-aware enhancement significantly improves the performance of LLM-based APR, yielding 1.6x more successful repairs compared to using LLM-based APR without such context. Moreover, our findings are consistent across both Java and Python benchmarks, providing preliminary evidence for the generalizability of our findings.