arXiv preprint ·
Bug Severity Classification with Fine-Tuned Open LLMs: A Paired Comparison with TF-IDF and CodeBERT Baselines on Eclipse Reports
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Open large language models (LLMs) small enough to run on a laptop are an obvious candidate for automatic bug severity prediction. We measure what they add over cheaper classifiers on one task: assigning one of four Bugzilla severity levels (Critical, Major, Minor, Trivial) to Eclipse bug reports. From a public dump of 361,006 unique Eclipse reports we draw a class-balanced sample of 20,000 rows and compare eleven configurations of nine model types: six TF-IDF classifiers, a fine-tuned CodeBERT encoder, and Llama 3 8B and Qwen 2.5 7B, each run zero-shot and after QLoRA fine-tuning. All eleven are scored on the same 2,000 held-out reports, with bootstrap intervals and McNemar tests. The zero-shot runs reach macro-F1 0.305 and 0.321, below every TF-IDF model (0.430-0.489). The fine-tuned runs reach 0.526 and 0.485, but the zero-shot and fine-tuned setups also differ in checkpoint, serving runtime and decoding, so this gap cannot be credited to fine-tuning alone. Fine-tuned Llama 3 shows no detectable difference from CodeBERT (0.518; difference +0.007, 95% CI -0.017 to +0.032), and fine-tuned Qwen 2.5 is below it on macro-F1. The models differ more by class than in aggregate: fine-tuned Llama 3 finds 36% of Critical reports, Qwen 2.5 finds 69% but only 21% of Minor ones. The dump repeats 60,000 rows, and 8% of the test reports duplicate a training report; removing them lowers TF-IDF scores by up to 0.031 and leaves the LLMs almost unchanged. We release split identifiers, per-report predictions and the analysis script at https://github.com/tbayan/bug_finetuning_llm_artifacts, together with CyberTriage, a tool that serves the fine-tuned classifier locally.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Software Engineering
How Do Small Coding Agents Use Code Graphs and Embeddings?
Thinking-in-Bets at Test Time Reduces Sycophantic Revisions in LLM Agents
Securing Agent-Generated Code with Its Own Development History
The Physical Cost of Context: Quality-Constrained Resource Accounting for Coding Agents
Arya Forge: Auditing Validation and Release Approval for Financial Instruction Data
Get the few papers worth your time in Software Engineering every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.