Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Can We Enhance Bug Report Quality Using LLMs?: An Empirical Study of LLM-Based Bug Report Generation

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

arxiv 2504.18804 v1 pith:LMY4UGXT submitted 2025-04-26 cs.SE cs.AI

Can We Enhance Bug Report Quality Using LLMs?: An Empirical Study of LLM-Based Bug Report Generation

classification cs.SE cs.AI
keywords textbfreportsctqrsfine-tunedllamallmsqwenreport
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Bug reports contain the information developers need to triage and fix software bugs. However, unclear, incomplete, or ambiguous information may lead to delays and excessive manual effort spent on bug triage and resolution. In this paper, we explore whether Instruction fine-tuned Large Language Models (LLMs) can automatically transform casual, unstructured bug reports into high-quality, structured bug reports adhering to a standard template. We evaluate three open-source instruction-tuned LLMs (\emph{Qwen 2.5, Mistral, and Llama 3.2}) against ChatGPT-4o, measuring performance on established metrics such as CTQRS, ROUGE, METEOR, and SBERT. Our experiments show that fine-tuned Qwen 2.5 achieves a CTQRS score of \textbf{77%}, outperforming both fine-tuned Mistral (\textbf{71%}), Llama 3.2 (\textbf{63%}) and ChatGPT in 3-shot learning (\textbf{75%}). Further analysis reveals that Llama 3.2 shows higher accuracy of detecting missing fields particularly Expected Behavior and Actual Behavior, while Qwen 2.5 demonstrates superior performance in capturing Steps-to-Reproduce, with an F1 score of 76%. Additional testing of the models on other popular projects (e.g., Eclipse, GCC) demonstrates that our approach generalizes well, achieving up to \textbf{70%} CTQRS in unseen projects' bug reports. These findings highlight the potential of instruction fine-tuning in automating structured bug report generation, reducing manual effort for developers and streamlining the software maintenance process.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Bug Report Specification Refinement with Trajectory Guidance for Automated Program Repair

    cs.SE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Refining bug reports with hierarchical evidence from an unverified agent trajectory plus repository review raises Pass@1 on SWE-Bench Lite from 41% to 59.67% (GPT-5-mini) and similarly for other agents.

  2. ImproBR: Bug Report Improver Using LLMs

    cs.SE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    ImproBR combines a hybrid detector with GPT-4o mini and RAG to raise bug report structural completeness from 7.9% to 96.4% and executable steps from 28.8% to 67.6% on 139 Mojira reports.

  3. An Empirical Evaluation of Locally Deployed LLMs for Bug Detection in Python Code

    cs.SE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Locally deployed LLMs achieve 43-45% accuracy on Python bug detection but frequently produce only partial identifications of problematic code regions.