A Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation of LLM-Based Explainable Fault Localization

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2308.05487v3
• Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2024 13:25:16 GMT
• Title: A Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation of LLM-Based Explainable Fault Localization
• Authors: Sungmin Kang, Gabin An, Shin Yoo,
• Abstract summary: AutoFL generates an explanation of the bug along with a suggested fault location. Experiments on 798 real-world bugs in Java and Python reveal AutoFL improves method-level acc@1 by up to 233.3% over baselines.
• Score: 12.80414941523501
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Fault Localization (FL), in which a developer seeks to identify which part of the code is malfunctioning and needs to be fixed, is a recurring challenge in debugging. To reduce developer burden, many automated FL techniques have been proposed. However, prior work has noted that existing techniques fail to provide rationales for the suggested locations, hindering developer adoption of these techniques. With this in mind, we propose AutoFL, a Large Language Model (LLM)-based FL technique that generates an explanation of the bug along with a suggested fault location. AutoFL prompts an LLM to use function calls to navigate a repository, so that it can effectively localize faults over a large software repository and overcome the limit of the LLM context length. Extensive experiments on 798 real-world bugs in Java and Python reveal AutoFL improves method-level acc@1 by up to 233.3% over baselines. Furthermore, developers were interviewed on their impression of AutoFL-generated explanations, showing that developers generally liked the natural language explanations of AutoFL, and that they preferred reading a few, high-quality explanations instead of many.

Related papers

• Enhancing Fault Localization Through Ordered Code Analysis with LLM Agents and Self-Reflection [8.22737389683156]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) offer promising improvements in fault localization by enhancing code comprehension and reasoning. We introduce LLM4FL, a novel LLM-agent-based fault localization approach that integrates SBFL rankings with a divide-and-conquer strategy. Our results demonstrate that LLM4FL outperforms AutoFL by 19.27% in Top-1 accuracy and surpasses state-of-the-art supervised techniques such as DeepFL and Grace.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-20T16:47:34Z)
• Understanding and Mitigating Language Confusion in LLMs [76.96033035093204]
  We evaluate 15 typologically diverse languages with existing and newly-created English and multilingual prompts. We find that Llama Instruct and Mistral models exhibit high degrees of language confusion. We find that language confusion can be partially mitigated via few-shot prompting, multilingual SFT and preference tuning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-28T17:03:51Z)
• AgentFL: Scaling LLM-based Fault Localization to Project-Level Context [11.147750199280813]
  This paper presents AgentFL, a multi-agent system based on ChatGPT for automated fault localization. By simulating the behavior of a human developer, AgentFL models the FL task as a three-step process, which involves comprehension, navigation, and confirmation. The evaluation on the widely used Defects4J-V1.2.0 benchmark shows that AgentFL can localize 157 out of 395 bugs within Top-1.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-25T01:58:19Z)
• Demystifying Faulty Code with LLM: Step-by-Step Reasoning for Explainable Fault Localization [5.7821087202452]
  This study investigates the step-by-step reasoning for explainable fault localization. We created a dataset of faulty code files, along with explanations for 600 faulty lines. We found that for 22 out of the 30 randomly sampled cases, FuseFL generated correct explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-15T17:47:20Z)
• When LLMs Meet Cunning Texts: A Fallacy Understanding Benchmark for Large Language Models [59.84769254832941]
  We propose a FaLlacy Understanding Benchmark (FLUB) containing cunning texts that are easy for humans to understand but difficult for models to grasp. Specifically, the cunning texts that FLUB focuses on mainly consist of the tricky, humorous, and misleading texts collected from the real internet environment. Based on FLUB, we investigate the performance of multiple representative and advanced LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-16T22:12:53Z)
• Code Prompting Elicits Conditional Reasoning Abilities in Text+Code LLMs [65.2379940117181]
  We introduce code prompting, a chain of prompts that transforms a natural language problem into code. We find that code prompting exhibits a high-performance boost for multiple LLMs. Our analysis of GPT 3.5 reveals that the code formatting of the input problem is essential for performance improvement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-18T15:32:24Z)
• LLMRefine: Pinpointing and Refining Large Language Models via Fine-Grained Actionable Feedback [65.84061725174269]
  Recent large language models (LLM) are leveraging human feedback to improve their generation quality. We propose LLMRefine, an inference time optimization method to refine LLM's output. We conduct experiments on three text generation tasks, including machine translation, long-form question answering (QA), and topical summarization. LLMRefine consistently outperforms all baseline approaches, achieving improvements up to 1.7 MetricX points on translation tasks, 8.1 ROUGE-L on ASQA, 2.2 ROUGE-L on topical summarization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T19:52:11Z)
• Large Language Models for Test-Free Fault Localization [11.080712737595174]
  We propose a language model based fault localization approach that locates buggy lines of code without any test coverage information. We fine-tune language models with 350 million, 6 billion, and 16 billion parameters on small, manually curated corpora of buggy programs. Our empirical evaluation shows that LLMAO improves the Top-1 results over the state-of-the-art machine learning fault localization (MLFL) baselines by 2.3%-54.4%, and Top-5 results by 14.4%-35.6%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-03T01:26:39Z)
• Are Large Language Models Really Robust to Word-Level Perturbations? [68.60618778027694]
  We propose a novel rational evaluation approach that leverages pre-trained reward models as diagnostic tools. Longer conversations manifest the comprehensive grasp of language models in terms of their proficiency in understanding questions. Our results demonstrate that LLMs frequently exhibit vulnerability to word-level perturbations that are commonplace in daily language usage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-20T09:23:46Z)
• Check Your Facts and Try Again: Improving Large Language Models with External Knowledge and Automated Feedback [127.75419038610455]
  Large language models (LLMs) are able to generate human-like, fluent responses for many downstream tasks. This paper proposes a LLM-Augmenter system, which augments a black-box LLM with a set of plug-and-play modules.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-24T18:48:43Z)

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.