mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

LLM-Based Automated Diagnosis Of Integration Test Failures At Google

arXiv 2604.12108 ↗First posted 13 Apr 2026cs.SE cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Integration testing is critical for the quality and reliability of complex software systems. However, diagnosing their failures presents significant challenges due to the massive volume, unstructured nature, and heterogeneity of logs they generate. These result in a high cognitive load, low signal-to-noise ratio, and make diagnosis difficult and time-consuming. Developers complain about these difficulties consistently and report spending substantially more time diagnosing integration test failures compared to unit test failures. To address these shortcomings, we introduce Auto-Diagnose, a novel diagnosis tool that leverages LLMs to help developers efficiently determine the root cause of integration test failures. Auto-Diagnose analyzes failure logs, produces concise summaries with the most relevant log lines, and is integrated into Critique, Google's internal code review system, providing contextual and in-time assistance. Based on our case studies, Auto-Diagnose is highly effective. A manual evaluation conducted on 71 real-world failures demonstrated 90.14% accuracy in diagnosing the root cause. Following its Google-wide deployment, Auto-Diagnose was used across 52, 635 distinct failing tests. User feedback indicated that the tool was deemed "Not helpful" in only 5.8% of cases, and it was ranked #14 in helpfulness among 370 tools that post findings in Critique. Finally, user interviews confirmed the perceived usefulness of Auto-Diagnose and positive reception of integrating automatic diagnostic assistance into existing workflows. We conclude that LLMs are highly successful in diagnosing integration test failures due to their capacity to process and summarize complex textual data. Integrating such AI-powered tooling automatically into developers' daily workflows is perceived positively, with the tool's accuracy remaining a critical factor in shaping developer perception and adoption.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 62 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Apr 2026.

Builds on

21 of 62 references.

References · 21

  1. 2025Gemini 2.5: Pushing the Frontier with Advanced Reasoning, Multimodality, Long Context, and Next Generation Agentic Capabilitiescited by 3,655
  2. 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,193
  3. 2023Code Llama: Open Foundation Models for Codecited by 2,105
  4. 2024Agentless: Demystifying LLM-based Software Engineering Agentscited by 400
  5. 2023Large Language Models for Software Engineering: A Systematic Literature Reviewcited by 389
  6. 2024AutoCodeRover: Autonomous Program Improvementcited by 272
  7. 2025SWE-smith: Scaling Data for Software Engineering Agentscited by 255
  8. 2024RepairAgent: An Autonomous, LLM-Based Agent for Program Repaircited by 225
  9. 2023Keep the Conversation Going: Fixing 162 out of 337 bugs for 0.42 each using ChatGPTcited by 125
  10. 2024CodeR: Issue Resolving with Multi-Agent and Task Graphscited by 89
  11. 2022Less Training, More Repairing Please: Revisiting Automated Program Repair via Zero-shot Learningcited by 76
  12. 2024SpecRover: Code Intent Extraction via LLMscited by 71
9 more
  1. 2020A Survey on Automated Log Analysis for Reliability Engineeringcited by 50
  2. 2023A Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation of LLM-Based Explainable Fault Localizationcited by 50
  3. 2025Evaluating Agent-based Program Repair at Googlecited by 35
  4. 2023Large Language Models in Fault Localisationcited by 28
  5. 2021Fault Localization with Code Coverage Representation Learningcited by 16
  6. 2016Spectrum-based Software Fault Localization: A Survey of Techniques, Advances, and Challengescited by 9
  7. 2024Natural Language Outlines for Code: Literate Programming in the LLM Eracited by 9
  8. 2024Debugging with Open-Source Large Language Models: An Evaluationcited by 7
  9. 2025Agentic Program Repair from Test Failures at Scale: A Neuro-symbolic approach with static analysis and test execution feedbackcited by 6

Built on by

Not cited yet.