Fault Localization via Fine-tuning Large Language Models with Mutation Generated Stack Traces
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Abrupt and unexpected terminations of software are termed as software crashes. They can be challenging to analyze. Finding the root cause requires extensive manual effort and expertise to connect information sources like stack traces, source code, and logs. Typical approaches to fault localization require either test failures or source code. Crashes occurring in production environments, such as that of SAP HANA, provide solely crash logs and stack traces. We present a novel approach to localize faults based only on the stack trace information and no additional runtime information, by fine-tuning large language models (LLMs). We address complex cases where the root cause of a crash differs from the technical cause, and is not located in the innermost frame of the stack trace. As the number of historic crashes is insufficient to fine-tune LLMs, we augment our dataset by leveraging code mutators to inject synthetic crashes into the code base. By fine-tuning on 64,369 crashes resulting from 4.1 million mutations of the HANA code base, we can correctly predict the root cause location of a crash with an accuracy of 66.9% while baselines only achieve 12.6% and 10.6%. We substantiate the generalizability of our approach by evaluating on two additional open-source databases, SQLite and DuckDB, achieving accuracies of 63% and 74%, respectively. Across all our experiments, fine-tuning consistently outperformed prompting non-finetuned LLMs for localizing faults in our datasets.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 26 of its 54 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Jan 2025.
Builds on
26 of 54 references.
References · 26
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
- 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,132
- 2021LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Modelscited by 14,084
- 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 12,865
- 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,053
- 2023Mistral 7Bcited by 3,065
- 2023Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4cited by 2,579
- 2023A Survey of Large Language Modelscited by 2,537
- 2023Code Llama: Open Foundation Models for Codecited by 2,105
- 2024Mixtral of Expertscited by 1,785
- 2016Enriching Word Vectors with Subword Informationcited by 1,578
- 2023Large Language Models for Software Engineering: A Systematic Literature Reviewcited by 389
14 more
- 2023Large Language Models for Software Engineering: Survey and Open Problemscited by 178
- 2023SantaCoder: don't reach for the stars!cited by 169
- 2022Few-shot training LLMs for project-specific code-summarizationcited by 128
- 2023InferFix: End-to-End Program Repair with LLMscited by 113
- 2022Repair Is Nearly Generation: Multilingual Program Repair with LLMscited by 68
- 2023Large Language Models for Test-Free Fault Localizationcited by 67
- 2024BugsInPy: A Database of Existing Bugs in Python Programs to Enable Controlled Testing and Debugging Studiescited by 35
- 2023Large Language Models in Fault Localisationcited by 28
- 2021Fault Localization with Code Coverage Representation Learningcited by 16
- 2018An Empirical Study of Fault Localization Families and Their Combinationscited by 13
- 2023Fairness of ChatGPT and the Role Of Explainable-Guided Promptscited by 13
- 2016Spectrum-based Software Fault Localization: A Survey of Techniques, Advances, and Challengescited by 9
- 2014Locating Crashing Faults based on Crash Stack Tracescited by 3
- 2024SBEST: Spectrum-Based Fault Localization Without Fault-Triggering Testscited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.