Order Matters! An Empirical Study on Large Language Models' Input Order Bias in Software Fault Localization
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Large Language Models (LLMs) show great promise in software engineering tasks like Fault Localization (FL) and Automatic Program Repair (APR). This study investigates the impact of input order and context size on LLM performance in FL, a crucial step for many downstream software engineering tasks. We test different orders for methods using Kendall Tau distances, including "perfect" (where ground truths come first) and "worst" (where ground truths come last), using two benchmarks that consist of both Java and Python projects. Our results indicate a significant bias in order; Top-1 FL accuracy in Java projects drops from 57% to 20%, while in Python projects, it decreases from 38% to approximately 3% when we reverse the code order. Breaking down inputs into smaller contexts helps reduce this bias, narrowing the performance gap in FL from 22% to 6% and then to just 1% on both benchmarks. We then investigated whether the bias in order was caused by data leakage by renaming the method names with more meaningful alternatives. Our findings indicated that the trend remained consistent, suggesting that the bias was not due to data leakage. We also look at ordering methods based on traditional FL techniques and metrics. Ordering using DepGraph's ranking achieves 48% Top-1 accuracy, which is better than more straightforward ordering approaches like CallGraphDFS. These findings underscore the importance of how we structure inputs, manage contexts, and choose ordering methods to improve LLM performance in FL and other software engineering tasks.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 14 of its 47 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Dec 2024.
Builds on
14 of 47 references.
References · 14
- 2024Agentless: Demystifying LLM-based Software Engineering Agentscited by 421
- 2024AutoCodeRover: Autonomous Program Improvementcited by 278
- 2024Leak, Cheat, Repeat: Data Contamination and Evaluation Malpractices in Closed-Source LLMscited by 229
- 2023RecurrentGPT: Interactive Generation of (Arbitrarily) Long Textcited by 84
- 2023Large Language Models for Test-Free Fault Localizationcited by 67
- 2024Exploring LLM-based Agents for Root Cause Analysiscited by 61
- 2023A Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation of LLM-Based Explainable Fault Localizationcited by 50
- 2024AgentFL: Scaling LLM-based Fault Localization to Project-Level Contextcited by 47
- 2024BugsInPy: A Database of Existing Bugs in Python Programs to Enable Controlled Testing and Debugging Studiescited by 36
- 2023Large Language Models in Fault Localisationcited by 28
- 2023Primacy Effect of ChatGPTcited by 27
- 2019Kendall Tau Sequence Distance: Extending Kendall Tau from Ranks to Sequencescited by 7
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 2.
3 papers.