REVIEW 6 cited by
AgentFL: Scaling LLM-based Fault Localization to Project-Level Context
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
Fault Localization (FL) is an essential step during the debugging process. With the strong capabilities of code comprehension, the recent Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated promising performance in diagnosing bugs in the code. Nevertheless, due to LLMs' limited performance in handling long contexts, existing LLM-based fault localization remains on localizing bugs within a small code scope (i.e., a method or a class), which struggles to diagnose bugs for a large code scope (i.e., an entire software system). To address the limitation, 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. Within each step, AgentFL hires agents with diversified expertise, each of which utilizes different tools to handle specific tasks. Particularly, we adopt a series of auxiliary strategies such as Test Behavior Tracking, Document-Guided Search, and Multi-Round Dialogue to overcome the challenges in each step. The evaluation on the widely used Defects4J-V1.2.0 benchmark shows that AgentFL can localize 157 out of 395 bugs within Top-1, which outperforms the other LLM-based approaches and exhibits complementarity to the state-of-the-art learning-based techniques. Additionally, we confirm the indispensability of the components in AgentFL with the ablation study and demonstrate the usability of AgentFL through a user study. Finally, the cost analysis shows that AgentFL spends an average of only 0.074 dollars and 97 seconds for a single bug.
Forward citations
Cited by 6 Pith papers
-
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.
-
HLSDebugger: Identification and Correction of Logic Bugs in HLS Code with LLM Solutions
HLSDebugger fixes logic bugs in HLS code with 37.6% accuracy, outperforming GPT-4 by over 3x, using an encoder-decoder model trained on a new 300K-sample dataset.
-
Taming System Complexity: Demystifying Software Engineering Agents in Diagnosing Linux Kernel Faults
On a new 250-bug Linux kernel benchmark, state-of-the-art LLM agents localize at most 41.6 percent of buggy files at rank 1; the proposed LinuxFL+ framework improves this to 52.4 percent.
-
SACL: Understanding and Combating Textual Bias in Code Retrieval with Semantic-Augmented Reranking and Localization
Code retrievers rely on surface text like identifiers and docstrings rather than code semantics, and a description-based reranking pipeline, SACL, compensates for that bias but its headline gains come mostly from arti...
-
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.
-
LLM-Based Agentic Systems for Software Engineering: Challenges and Opportunities
A survey of LLM-based multi-agent systems across the software development life cycle, plus a research agenda for orchestration, human coordination, cost, and data.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.