Evaluating Diverse Large Language Models for Automatic and General Bug Reproduction

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2311.04532v2
• Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2023 02:19:20 GMT
• Title: Evaluating Diverse Large Language Models for Automatic and General Bug Reproduction
• Authors: Sungmin Kang, Juyeon Yoon, Nargiz Askarbekkyzy, Shin Yoo
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) have been demonstrated to be adept at natural language processing and code generation. Our proposed technique LIBRO could successfully reproduce about one-third of all bugs in the widely used Defects4J benchmark.
• Score: 12.851941377433285
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Bug reproduction is a critical developer activity that is also challenging to automate, as bug reports are often in natural language and thus can be difficult to transform to test cases consistently. As a result, existing techniques mostly focused on crash bugs, which are easier to automatically detect and verify. In this work, we overcome this limitation by using large language models (LLMs), which have been demonstrated to be adept at natural language processing and code generation. By prompting LLMs to generate bug-reproducing tests, and via a post-processing pipeline to automatically identify promising generated tests, our proposed technique LIBRO could successfully reproduce about one-third of all bugs in the widely used Defects4J benchmark. Furthermore, our extensive evaluation on 15 LLMs, including 11 open-source LLMs, suggests that open-source LLMs also demonstrate substantial potential, with the StarCoder LLM achieving 70% of the reproduction performance of the closed-source OpenAI LLM code-davinci-002 on the large Defects4J benchmark, and 90% of performance on a held-out bug dataset likely not part of any LLM's training data. In addition, our experiments on LLMs of different sizes show that bug reproduction using LIBRO improves as LLM size increases, providing information as to which LLMs can be used with the LIBRO pipeline.

Related papers

• SpecTool: A Benchmark for Characterizing Errors in Tool-Use LLMs [77.79172008184415]
  SpecTool is a new benchmark to identify error patterns in LLM output on tool-use tasks. We show that even the most prominent LLMs exhibit these error patterns in their outputs. Researchers can use the analysis and insights from SPECTOOL to guide their error mitigation strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-20T18:56:22Z)
• Fixing Code Generation Errors for Large Language Models [6.137340149146578]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are designed to automatically produce source code for software development. LLMs' generated code often fails to pass test cases and requires substantial human effort to fix errors. We propose a fixing method called LlmFix, which addresses three types of errors through a three-step process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-01T09:40:15Z)
• Exploring Automatic Cryptographic API Misuse Detection in the Era of LLMs [60.32717556756674]
  This paper introduces a systematic evaluation framework to assess Large Language Models in detecting cryptographic misuses. Our in-depth analysis of 11,940 LLM-generated reports highlights that the inherent instabilities in LLMs can lead to over half of the reports being false positives. The optimized approach achieves a remarkable detection rate of nearly 90%, surpassing traditional methods and uncovering previously unknown misuses in established benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-23T15:31:26Z)
• What's Wrong with Your Code Generated by Large Language Models? An Extensive Study [80.18342600996601]
  Large language models (LLMs) produce code that is shorter yet more complicated as compared to canonical solutions. We develop a taxonomy of bugs for incorrect codes that includes three categories and 12 sub-categories, and analyze the root cause for common bug types. We propose a novel training-free iterative method that introduces self-critique, enabling LLMs to critique and correct their generated code based on bug types and compiler feedback.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-08T17:27:17Z)
• Where Do Large Language Models Fail When Generating Code? [10.519984835232359]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown great potential in code generation. It is unclear what kinds of code generation errors LLMs can make. We analyzed incorrect code snippets generated by six popular LLMs on the HumanEval dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-13T01:29:52Z)
• LLatrieval: LLM-Verified Retrieval for Verifiable Generation [67.93134176912477]
  Verifiable generation aims to let the large language model (LLM) generate text with supporting documents. We propose LLatrieval (Large Language Model Verified Retrieval), where the LLM updates the retrieval result until it verifies that the retrieved documents can sufficiently support answering the question. Experiments show that LLatrieval significantly outperforms extensive baselines and achieves state-of-the-art results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T01:38:02Z)
• The GitHub Recent Bugs Dataset for Evaluating LLM-based Debugging Applications [20.339673903885483]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong natural language processing and code synthesis capabilities. Details about LLM training data are often not made public, which has caused concern as to whether existing bug benchmarks are included. We present the GitHub Recent Bugs dataset, which includes 76 real-world Java bugs that were gathered after the OpenAI data cut-off point.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-20T02:37:44Z)
• Assessing the Reliability of Large Language Model Knowledge [78.38870272050106]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been treated as knowledge bases due to their strong performance in knowledge probing tasks. How do we evaluate the capabilities of LLMs to consistently produce factually correct answers? We propose MOdel kNowledge relIabiliTy scORe (MONITOR), a novel metric designed to directly measure LLMs' factual reliability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-15T12:40:30Z)
• Towards Generating Functionally Correct Code Edits from Natural Language Issue Descriptions [11.327913840111378]
  We introduce Defects4J-NL2Fix, a dataset of 283 Java programs from the popular Defects4J dataset augmented with high-level descriptions of bug fixes. We empirically evaluate the performance of several state-of-the-art LLMs for the this task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-07T18:58:33Z)
• 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)
• Large Language Models are Few-shot Testers: Exploring LLM-based General Bug Reproduction [14.444294152595429]
  The number of tests added in open source repositories due to issues was about 28% of the corresponding project test suite size. We propose LIBRO, a framework that uses Large Language Models (LLMs), which have been shown to be capable of performing code-related tasks. Our evaluation of LIBRO shows that, on the widely studied Defects4J benchmark, LIBRO can generate failure reproducing test cases for 33% of all studied cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-23T10:50:47Z)

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.