REVIEW 5 cited by
Large Language Models in Fault Localisation
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in multiple software engineering tasks including code generation, program repair, code summarisation, and test generation. Fault localisation is instrumental in enabling automated debugging and repair of programs and was prominently featured as a highlight during the launch event of ChatGPT-4. Nevertheless, the performance of LLMs compared to state-of-the-art methods, as well as the impact of prompt design and context length on their efficacy, remains unclear. To fill this gap, this paper presents an in-depth investigation into the capability of ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4, the two state-of-the-art LLMs, on fault localisation. Using the widely-adopted large-scale Defects4J dataset, we compare the two LLMs with the existing fault localisation techniques. We also investigate the consistency of LLMs in fault localisation, as well as how prompt engineering and the length of code context affect the fault localisation effectiveness. Our findings demonstrate that within function-level context, ChatGPT-4 outperforms all the existing fault localisation methods. Additional error logs can further improve ChatGPT models' localisation accuracy and consistency, with an average 46.9% higher accuracy over the state-of-the-art baseline SmartFL on the Defects4J dataset in terms of TOP-1 metric. However, when the code context of the Defects4J dataset expands to the class-level, ChatGPT-4's performance suffers a significant drop, with 49.9% lower accuracy than SmartFL under TOP-1 metric. These observations indicate that although ChatGPT can effectively localise faults under specific conditions, limitations are evident. Further research is needed to fully harness the potential of LLMs like ChatGPT for practical fault localisation applications.
Forward citations
Cited by 5 Pith papers
-
PhoenixRepair: Rethinking Repair Strategy Exploration in Software Agents
A multi-agent repair framework that samples multiple edit locations and iteratively reflects on patch attempts reaches 76.0% Pass@1 on SWE-bench-Verified, up to a 7.8% relative gain over SWE-agent.
-
SWE-Debate: Competitive Multi-Agent Debate for Software Issue Resolution
A competitive multi-agent debate over graph-derived fault propagation chains lifts automated issue resolution on SWE-bench Verified to 41.4% pass@1.
-
Improving LLM-Based Fault Localization with External Memory and Project Context
MemFL gives an LLM static project summaries and dynamic debugging tips, and reports a 12.7% Top-1 accuracy gain over LLM fault localization baselines on Defects4J with lower time and cost.
-
Fault Localisation and Repair for DL Systems: An Empirical Study with LLMs
LLMs, especially GPT-4, outperform existing fault localisation and repair tools for deep learning models in accuracy, speed, and stability.
-
Large Language Models for Fault Localization: An Empirical Study
An empirical study of four LLMs for statement-level Java fault localization finds Gemini-2.5-Flash most accurate, bug-report context strongly helpful, and few-shot/CoT gains inconsistent.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.