LLM-based automated program repair methods have attracted significant attention for their state-of-the-art performance. However, they were primarily evaluated on a few well known datasets like Defects4J, raising questions about their effectiveness on new datasets. In this study, we evaluate 11 top-performing LLMs on DEFECTS4J-TRANS, a new dataset derived from transforming Defects4J while maintaining the original semantics. Results from experiments on both Defects4J and DEFECTS4J-TRANS show that all studied LLMs have limited generalizability in APR tasks, with the average number of correct and plausible patches decreasing by 49.48% and 42.90%, respectively, on DEFECTS4J-TRANS. Further investigation into incorporating additional repair-relevant information in repair prompts reveals that, although this information significantly enhances the LLMs' capabilities (increasing the number of correct and plausible patches by up to 136.67% and 121.82%, respectively), performance still falls short of their original results. This indicates that prompt engineering alone is insufficient to substantially enhance LLMs' repair capabilities. Based on our study, we also offer several recommendations for future research.

Fairness has been a critical issue that affects the adoption of deep learning models in real practice. To improve model fairness, many existing methods have been proposed and evaluated to be effective in their own contexts. However, there is still no systematic evaluation among them for a comprehensive comparison under the same context, which makes it hard to understand the performance distinction among them, hindering the research progress and practical adoption of them. To fill this gap, this paper endeavours to conduct the first large-scale empirical study to comprehensively compare the performance of existing state-of-the-art fairness improving techniques. Specifically, we target the widely-used application scenario of image classification, and utilized three different datasets and five commonly-used performance metrics to assess in total 13 methods from diverse categories. Our findings reveal substantial variations in the performance of each method across different datasets and sensitive attributes, indicating over-fitting on specific datasets by many existing methods. Furthermore, different fairness evaluation metrics, due to their distinct focuses, yield significantly different assessment results. Overall, we observe that pre-processing methods and in-processing methods outperform post-processing methods, with pre-processing methods exhibiting the best performance. Our empirical study offers comprehensive recommendations for enhancing fairness in deep learning models. We approach the problem from multiple dimensions, aiming to provide a uniform evaluation platform and inspire researchers to explore more effective fairness solutions via a set of implications.