Evaluating Diverse Large Language Models for Automatic and General Bug Reproduction
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
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.
Key facts. Cited by 12 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 8 Nov 2023.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 2; 2025: 9; 2026: 1.
12 papers.
- 2024LLMs: A Game-Changer for Software Engineers?cited by 11
- 2025FaultLine: Automated Proof-of-Vulnerability Generation Using LLM Agentscited by 11
- 2025Challenges in Testing Large Language Model Based Software: A Faceted Taxonomycited by 8
- 2025Using LLMs in Generating Design Rationale for Software Architecture Decisionscited by 4
- 2025Past, Present, and Future of Bug Tracking in the Generative AI Eracited by 4
- 2025COSMosFL: Ensemble of Small Language Models for Fault Localisationcited by 3
- 2024GPT-4 on Clinic Depression Assessment: An LLM-Based Pilot Studycited by 1
- 2025Uncovering Intention through LLM-Driven Code Snippet Description Generationcited by 1
- 2025AutoCodeSherpa: Symbolic Explanations in AI Coding Agentscited by 1
- 2026Program Analysis Guided LLM Agent for Proof-of-Concept Generationcited by 1
- 2025Search-Based Software Engineering and AI Foundation Models: Current Landscape and Future Roadmapcited by 0
- 2025Software Vulnerability Management in the Era of Artificial Intelligence: An Industry Perspectivecited by 0
- 2026Program Analysis Guided LLM Agent for Proof-of-Concept Generation8 Apr 2026
- 2025Software Vulnerability Management in the Era of Artificial Intelligence: An Industry Perspective20 Dec 2025
- 2025Past, Present, and Future of Bug Tracking in the Generative AI Era9 Oct 2025
- 2025AutoCodeSherpa: Symbolic Explanations in AI Coding Agents30 Jul 2025
- 2025FaultLine: Automated Proof-of-Vulnerability Generation Using LLM Agents21 Jul 2025
- 2025Uncovering Intention through LLM-Driven Code Snippet Description Generation18 Jun 2025
- 2025Search-Based Software Engineering and AI Foundation Models: Current Landscape and Future Roadmap26 May 2025
- 2025Using LLMs in Generating Design Rationale for Software Architecture Decisions29 Apr 2025
- 2025Challenges in Testing Large Language Model Based Software: A Faceted Taxonomy1 Mar 2025
- 2025COSMosFL: Ensemble of Small Language Models for Fault Localisation5 Feb 2025
- 2024GPT-4 on Clinic Depression Assessment: An LLM-Based Pilot Study31 Dec 2024
- 2024LLMs: A Game-Changer for Software Engineers?1 Nov 2024