mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

AutoEmpirical: LLM-Based Automated Research for Empirical Software Fault Analysis

arXiv 2510.04997 ↗First posted 6 Oct 2025cs.SE cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Understanding software faults is essential for empirical research in software development and maintenance. However, traditional fault analysis, while valuable, typically involves multiple expert-driven steps such as collecting potential faults, filtering, and manual investigation. These processes are both labor-intensive and time-consuming, creating bottlenecks that hinder large-scale fault studies in complex yet critical software systems and slow the pace of iterative empirical research. In this paper, we decompose the process of empirical software fault study into three key phases: (1) research objective definition, (2) data preparation, and (3) fault analysis, and we conduct an initial exploration study of applying Large Language Models (LLMs) for fault analysis of open-source software. Specifically, we perform the evaluation on 3,829 software faults drawn from a high-quality empirical study. Our results show that LLMs can substantially improve efficiency in fault analysis, with an average processing time of about two hours, compared to the weeks of manual effort typically required. We conclude by outlining a detailed research plan that highlights both the potential of LLMs for advancing empirical fault studies and the open challenges that required be addressed to achieve fully automated, end-to-end software fault analysis.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 13 of its 29 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Oct 2025.

Builds on

13 of 29 references.

References · 13

  1. 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,393
  2. 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,053
  3. 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,193
  4. 2025AI4Research: A Survey of Artificial Intelligence for Scientific Researchcited by 54
  5. 2023Can large language models replace humans in the systematic review process? Evaluating GPT-4's efficacy in screening and extracting data from peer-reviewed and grey literature in multiple languagescited by 36
  6. 2024ReposVul: A Repository-Level High-Quality Vulnerability Datasetcited by 35
  7. 2025A Survey of Scientific Large Language Models: From Data Foundations to Agent Frontierscited by 34
  8. 2022Toward Understanding Deep Learning Framework Bugscited by 26
  9. 2021An Empirical Study on Deployment Faults of Deep Learning Based Mobile Applicationscited by 20
  10. 2019Problems with SZZ and Features: An empirical study of the state of practice of defect prediction data collectioncited by 6
  11. 2025LLM-Based Detection of Tangled Code Changes for Higher-Quality Method-Level Bug Datasetscited by 3
  12. 2024Show, Don't Tell: Evaluating Large Language Models Beyond Textual Understanding with ChildPlaycited by 2
1 more
  1. 2025An Empirical Study of Bugs in Data Visualization Librariescited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.