Bug-Report-Driven Fault Localization: Industrial Benchmarking and Lesson Learned at ABB Robotics
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Software quality assurance remains a major challenge in industrial environments, where large-scale and long-lived systems inevitably accumulate defects. Identifying the location of a fault is often time-consuming and costly, particularly during maintenance phases when developers must rely primarily on textual bug reports rather than complete runtime or code-level context. In this study, we investigated if artificial intelligence can support fault localization using only the natural-language content of bug reports. By relying only on textual information, our approach requires no access to source code, execution traces, or static analysis artifacts, making it directly deployable within existing industrial maintenance workflows. We framed fault localization as a supervised text classification problem and evaluated three traditional machine learning models (Logistic Regression, Support Vector Machine, and Random Forest) and two fine-tuned transformer-based language models (RoBERTa-Base and Distil-RoBERTa). Our evaluation used proprietary data from ABB Robotics in Sweden, comprising five years of resolved industrial bug reports, each linked to its verified code fix. This setting allowed us to assess model effectiveness under realistic industrial constraints. Our results showed that traditional models using term frequency-inverse document features consistently outperformed the fine-tuned language models on this dataset, while data augmentation improved Random Forest performance. These findings challenge the assumption that transformer-based models universally outperform classical approaches in industrial contexts with domain-specific data. We demonstrated that historical bug reports can be systematically used for text-based, artificial intelligence-assisted fault localization, providing a scalable, low-cost, and empirically grounded complement to common debugging practices in industry.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 6 of its 35 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Apr 2026.
Builds on
6 of 35 references.
References · 6
- 2023Software Testing with Large Language Models: Survey, Landscape, and Visioncited by 166
- 2023Large Language Models for Test-Free Fault Localizationcited by 67
- 2023A Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation of LLM-Based Explainable Fault Localizationcited by 50
- 2022Repairing Bugs in Python Assignments Using Large Language Modelscited by 28
- 2022CatIss: An Intelligent Tool for Categorizing Issues Reports using Transformerscited by 5
- 2025An Empirical Study on the Classification of Bug Reports with Machine Learningcited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.