Cited by 147Software Testing and Debugging TechniquesSoftware Engineering ResearchSoftware System Performance and Reliability

Large Language Models for Test-Free Fault Localization

Open access
Yang, Aidan Z. H., Le Goues, Claire, Martins, Ruben, Hellendoorn, Vincent·2024·Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering

Abstract

Fault Localization (FL) aims to automatically localize buggy lines of code, a key first step in many manual and automatic debugging tasks. Previous FL techniques assume the provision of input tests, and often require extensive program analysis, program instrumentation, or data preprocessing. Prior work on deep learning for APR struggles to learn from small datasets and produces limited results on real-world programs. Inspired by the ability of large language models (LLMs) of code to adapt to new tasks based on very few examples, we investigate the applicability of LLMs to line level fault localization. Specifically, we propose to overcome the left-to-right nature of LLMs by fine-tuning a small set of bidirectional adapter layers on top of the representations learned by LLMs to produce LLMAO, the first language model based fault localization approach that locates buggy lines of code without any test coverage information. We fine-tune LLMs with 350 million, 6 billion, and 16 billion parameters on small, manually curated corpora of buggy programs such as the Defects4J corpus. We observe that our technique achieves substantially more confidence in fault localization when built on the larger models, with bug localization performance scaling consistently with the LLM size. 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%. LLMAO is also the first FL technique trained using a language model architecture that can detect security vulnerabilities down to the code line level.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3597503.3623342

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Most LLM-based fault localization techniques either cannot perform repository-level FL due to the limited context window of LLMs or rely on complicated/costly agentic design to navigate through the codebase.

    “Meanwhile, most such LLM-based techniques either cannot perform repository-level FL due to the limited context window of LLMs [98], or rely on complicated/costly agentic design to navigate through the codebase [48, 79].”

    From Agentless: Demystifying LLM-based Software Engineering Agents (2024) · cites this paper as [98]

    Only the first clause is attributed to this paper by citation [98]. Section 4.1.2 describes LLMAO as scoring lines within a code file, and Section 3.1 states that its model has a 2,048-token input limit. The paper does not establish that most LLM-based techniques cannot perform repository-level fault localization because of that limit; it says LLMAO uses windows to handle longer inputs. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • SWE-bench unites many separate software engineering tasks under a single task formulation that faithfully mirrors practical software engineering.

    “We use SWE-bench because it unites many separate SE tasks, such as automated program repair [10, 40, 55], bug localization [4, 58], and testing [22, 46, 56] under a single task formulation that faithfully mirrors practical SE.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 48 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Y. Li, S. Wang, and T. N. Nguyen, "Dear: A novel deep learning-based approach for automated program repair, " in Proceedings of the 44th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 511-523, 2022.
  2. L. Tunstall, L. Von Werra, and T. Wolf, Natural language processing with trans- formers. O'Reilly Media, Inc., 2022.
  3. B. Ray, V. Hellendoorn, S. Godhane, Z. Tu, A. Bacchelli, and P. Devanbu, "On the" naturalness" of buggy code," in Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 428-439, 2016.
  4. D. Engler and K. Ashcraft, "Racerx: Effective, static detection of race conditions and deadlocks, " ACM SIGOPS operating systems review, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 237-252, 2003.
  5. L. Gao, S. Biderman, S. Black, L. Golding, T. Hoppe, C. Foster, J. Phang, H. He, A. Thite, N. Nabeshima, et al., "The pile: An 800gb dataset of diverse text for language modeling, " arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.00027, 2020. · arXiv
  6. P. S. Kochhar, X. Xia, D. Lo, and S. Li, "Practitioners' expectations on automated fault localization, " in Proceedings of the 25th International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, pp. 165-176, 2016.
  7. H. Pearce, B. Ahmad, B. Tan, B. Dolan-Gavitt, and R. Karri, "An empirical cyber- security evaluation of github copilot's code contributions, " ArXiv abs/2108.09293, 2021. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yang, A. Z. H., Le Goues, C., Martins, R., & Hellendoorn, V.
Affiliations
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
  • Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
Venue
Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering
Publisher
ACM
Published
2024-02-06
Pages
1-12
ISSN
0270-5257 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4391579639
Cited by
144
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 53 · 2025: 64 · 2024: 27
FWCI
39.31
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings (ICSE-Companion) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • NSF (National Science Foundation) (CCF-1750116)
  • National Science Foundation (CCF-1762363)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Software System Performance and Reliability
Keywords
large language models, LLM fine-tuning, Defects4J, vulnerability detection, automated program repair

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review