Daily Papers

There is an increasing amount of research and commercial tools for automated test case generation using Large Language Models (LLMs). This paper critically examines whether recent LLM-based test generation tools, such as Codium CoverAgent and CoverUp, can effectively find bugs or unintentionally validate faulty code. Considering bugs are only exposed by failing test cases, we explore the question: can these tools truly achieve the intended objectives of software testing when their test oracles are designed to pass? Using real human-written buggy code as input, we evaluate these tools, showing how LLM-generated tests can fail to detect bugs and, more alarmingly, how their design can worsen the situation by validating bugs in the generated test suite and rejecting bug-revealing tests. These findings raise important questions about the validity of the design behind LLM-based test generation tools and their impact on software quality and test suite reliability.

Software is used in critical applications in our day-to-day life and it is important to ensure its correctness. One popular approach to assess correctness is to evaluate software on tests. If a test fails, it indicates a fault in the software under test; if all tests pass correctly, one may assume that the software is correct. However, the reliability of these results depends on the test suite considered, and there is a risk of false negatives (i.e. software that passes all available tests but contains bugs because some cases are not tested). Therefore, it is important to consider error-inducing test cases when evaluating software. To support data-driven creation of such a test-suite, which is especially of interest for testing software synthesized from large language models, we curate a dataset (Codehacks) of programming problems together with corresponding error-inducing test cases (i.e., "hacks"). This dataset is collected from the wild, in particular, from the Codeforces online judge platform. The dataset comprises 288,617 hacks for 5,578 programming problems, each with a natural language description, as well as the source code for 2,196 submitted solutions to these problems that can be broken with their corresponding hacks. Keywords: competitive programming, language model, dataset

The Tajik language, written in Cyrillic script, remains severely under-resourced in terms of publicly available natural language processing (NLP) toolkits, hindering both linguistic research and applied development. This paper introduces TajikNLP, an open-source Python library that provides the first comprehensive pipeline for processing authentic Tajik text while preserving the original Cyrillic orthography. The library implements a modular architecture centered around a unified Doc object, enabling sequential application of components for cleaning, normalization, tokenization (including subword BPE), morphemic segmentation, part-of-speech tagging, stemming, lemmatization, and sentence splitting. A novel unified morphology engine is introduced, offering controlled and deep analysis modes that significantly improve handling of Tajik's agglutinative nominal and verbal inflections. The release further incorporates a lexicon-based sentiment analyser and pre-trained Word2Vec/FastText embeddings loaded directly from the Hugging Face Hub. To ensure reproducibility and facilitate future research, four accompanying linguistic datasets -- a POS-tagged corpus (52.5k entries), a sentiment lexicon (3.5k entries), a toponym gazetteer (5.6k entries), and a personal names dataset (3.8k entries) -- have been openly published under permissive licenses. The library's reliability is validated by an extensive test suite of 616 automated tests achieving 93% source code coverage. TajikNLP thus establishes a foundational technological infrastructure for Tajik language processing, lowering the barrier to entry for both academic and industrial applications in low-resource Cyrillic-script environments.

Flaky tests are software tests that exhibit a seemingly random outcome (pass or fail) when run against the same, identical code. Previous work has examined fixes to flaky tests and has proposed automated solutions to locate as well as fix flaky tests--we complement it by examining the perceptions of software developers about the nature, relevance, and challenges of this phenomenon. We asked 21 professional developers to classify 200 flaky tests they previously fixed, in terms of the nature of the flakiness, the origin of the flakiness, and the fixing effort. We complement this analysis with information about the fixing strategy. Subsequently, we conducted an online survey with 121 developers with a median industrial programming experience of five years. Our research shows that: The flakiness is due to several different causes, four of which have never been reported before, despite being the most costly to fix; flakiness is perceived as significant by the vast majority of developers, regardless of their team's size and project's domain, and it can have effects on resource allocation, scheduling, and the perceived reliability of the test suite; and the challenges developers report to face regard mostly the reproduction of the flaky behavior and the identification of the cause for the flakiness. Data and materials [https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3265785].

Large Audio Language Models (LALMs) achieve strong performance on audio-language tasks; however, their reliability in real-world settings remains underexplored. We introduce Audio Hallucination Attacks (AHA), an attack suite called AHA-Eval, comprising 6.5K QA pairs designed to test whether LALMs genuinely ground their responses in the audio input. AHA targets two attack surfaces: (i) query-based attacks, which exploit question structure to induce hallucinations about absent sounds, and (ii) audio-based attacks, which inject synthetic speech describing non-existent events into the audio stream. Evaluating state-of-the-art LALMs, including Audio Flamingo 3 and Gemini 3 Pro, we observe high attack success rates of 95.35% and 79.65%, respectively, revealing a reliability gap that is hidden by standard benchmark performance. To mitigate this, we propose a 120K QA post-alignment dataset, AHA-Guard, which successfully reduces attack success rates by up to 49%.

Code generation models can help improve many common software tasks ranging from code completion to defect prediction. Most of the existing benchmarks for code generation LLMs focus on code authoring or code completion. Surprisingly, there has been far less effort dedicated to benchmarking software testing, despite the strong correlation between well-tested software and effective bug detection. To address this gap, we create and release TestGenEval, a large-scale benchmark to measure test generation performance. Based on SWEBench, TestGenEval comprises 68,647 tests from 1,210 code and test file pairs across 11 well-maintained Python repositories. It covers initial tests authoring, test suite completion, and code coverage improvements. Test authoring simulates the process of a developer writing a test suite from scratch, while test completion mimics the scenario where a developer aims to improve the coverage of an existing test suite. We evaluate several popular models, with sizes ranging from 7B to 405B parameters. Our detailed analysis highlights TestGenEval's contribution to a comprehensive evaluation of test generation performance. In particular, models struggle to generate high-coverage test suites, with the best model, GPT-4o, achieving an average coverage of only 35.2%. This is primarily due to models struggling to reason about execution, and their frequent assertion errors when addressing complex code paths.

Automated test generation holds great promise for alleviating the burdens of manual test creation. However, existing search-based techniques compromise on test readability, while LLM-based approaches are prohibitively expensive in practice. We present TestForge, an agentic unit testing framework designed to cost-effectively generate high-quality test suites for real-world code. Our key insight is to reframe LLM-based test generation as an iterative process. TestForge thus begins with tests generated via zero-shot prompting, and then continuously refines those tests based on feedback from test executions and coverage reports. We evaluate TestForge on TestGenEval, a real world unit test generation benchmark sourced from 11 large scale open source repositories; we show that TestForge achieves a pass@1 rate of 84.3%, 44.4% line coverage and 33.8% mutation score on average, outperforming prior classical approaches and a one-iteration LLM-based baseline. TestForge produces more natural and understandable tests compared to state-of-the-art search-based techniques, and offers substantial cost savings over LLM-based techniques (at $0.63 per file). Finally, we release a version of TestGenEval integrated with the OpenHands platform, a popular open-source framework featuring a diverse set of software engineering agents and agentic benchmarks, for future extension and development.

Large language models (LLMs) have been widely applied to assist test generation with the source code under test provided as the context. This paper aims to answer the question: If the source code under test is incorrect, will LLMs be misguided when generating tests? The effectiveness of test cases is measured by their accuracy, coverage, and bug detection effectiveness. Our evaluation results with five open- and six closed-source LLMs on four datasets demonstrate that incorrect code can significantly mislead LLMs in generating correct, high-coverage, and bug-revealing tests. For instance, in the HumanEval dataset, LLMs achieve 80.45% test accuracy when provided with task descriptions and correct code, but only 57.12% when given task descriptions and incorrect code. For the APPS dataset, prompts with correct code yield tests that detect 39.85% of the bugs, while prompts with incorrect code detect only 19.61%. These findings have important implications for the deployment of LLM-based testing: using it on mature code may help protect against future regression, but on early-stage immature code, it may simply bake in errors. Our findings also underscore the need for further research to improve LLMs resilience against incorrect code in generating reliable and bug-revealing tests.

Software updates, including bug repair and feature additions, are frequent in modern applications but they often leave test suites outdated, resulting in undetected bugs and increased chances of system failures. A recent study by Meta revealed that 14%-22% of software failures stem from outdated tests that fail to reflect changes in the codebase. This highlights the need to keep tests in sync with code changes to ensure software reliability. In this paper, we present UTFix, a novel approach for repairing unit tests when their corresponding focal methods undergo changes. UTFix addresses two critical issues: assertion failure and reduced code coverage caused by changes in the focal method. Our approach leverages language models to repair unit tests by providing contextual information such as static code slices, dynamic code slices, and failure messages. We evaluate UTFix on our generated synthetic benchmarks (Tool-Bench), and real-world benchmarks. Tool- Bench includes diverse changes from popular open-source Python GitHub projects, where UTFix successfully repaired 89.2% of assertion failures and achieved 100% code coverage for 96 tests out of 369 tests. On the real-world benchmarks, UTFix repairs 60% of assertion failures while achieving 100% code coverage for 19 out of 30 unit tests. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive study focused on unit test in evolving Python projects. Our contributions include the development of UTFix, the creation of Tool-Bench and real-world benchmarks, and the demonstration of the effectiveness of LLM-based methods in addressing unit test failures due to software evolution.

As production code evolves, the test suite must co-evolve to remain effective. Existing benchmarks for test evolution operate at method-level granularity with pre-paired inputs, bypassing the task of locating affected tests from the full project and excluding the need for new tests entirely. We present TEBench, the first project-level benchmark for test evolution. Given a project repository and a code-changing commit, TEBench requires systems to autonomously identify tests requiring modification, determine where new tests are needed, and produce the corresponding test patch. We construct TEBench through a four-stage pipeline over Defects4J projects, curating 314 task instances from 10 projects with developer-written ground truth. Each instance is annotated with one or more of three evolution types: Test-Breaking (tests that fail), Test-Stale (tests that pass but no longer meaningfully validate updated behavior), and Test-Missing (new tests needed for introduced behavior). We evaluate seven configurations spanning three industrial agent frameworks (Claude Code, Codex CLI, OpenCode) and six base models, alongside a heuristic baseline. All seven configurations converge on an identification F1 of 45.7% to 49.4%, revealing a shared performance ceiling across both frameworks and base models. Test-Stale is the most challenging type, averaging F1 around 36%, since configurations rely on execution failure signals and lack proactive semantic reasoning. On the update task, configurations produce highly executable test modifications whose surface form diverges substantially from ground truth. Trajectory analysis reveals a reactive "execute-fail-fix" loop that succeeds for breaking tests but structurally cannot address stale or missing tests. TEBench is available at https://github.com/iSEngLab/TEBench with a leaderboard at https://tebench-leadership.vercel.app.

In software testing, a set of test cases is constructed according to some predefined selection criteria. The software is then examined against these test cases. Three interesting observations have been made on the current artifacts of software testing. Firstly, an error-revealing test case is considered useful while a successful test case which does not reveal software errors is usually not further investigated. Whether these successful test cases still contain useful information for revealing software errors has not been properly studied. Secondly, no matter how extensive the testing has been conducted in the development phase, errors may still exist in the software [5]. These errors, if left undetected, may eventually cause damage to the production system. The study of techniques for uncovering software errors in the production phase is seldom addressed in the literature. Thirdly, as indicated by Weyuker in [6], the availability of test oracles is pragmatically unattainable in most situations. However, the availability of test oracles is generally assumed in conventional software testing techniques. In this paper, we propose a novel test case selection technique that derives new test cases from the successful ones. The selection aims at revealing software errors that are possibly left undetected in successful test cases which may be generated using some existing strategies. As such, the proposed technique augments the effectiveness of existing test selection strategies. The technique also helps uncover software errors in the production phase and can be used in the absence of test oracles.

A code generation model generates code by taking a prompt from a code comment, existing code, or a combination of both. Although code generation models (e.g. GitHub Copilot) are increasingly being adopted in practice, it is unclear whether they can successfully be used for unit test generation without fine-tuning. We investigated how well three generative models (Codex, GPT-3.5-Turbo, and StarCoder) can generate test cases to fill this gap. We used two benchmarks (HumanEval and Evosuite SF110) to investigate the context generation's effect in the unit test generation process. We evaluated the models based on compilation rates, test correctness, coverage, and test smells. We found that the Codex model achieved above 80% coverage for the HumanEval dataset, but no model had more than 2% coverage for the EvoSuite SF110 benchmark. The generated tests also suffered from test smells, such as Duplicated Asserts and Empty Tests.

We present an alternative method of evaluating Quality Estimation systems, which is based on a linguistically-motivated Test Suite. We create a test-set consisting of 14 linguistic error categories and we gather for each of them a set of samples with both correct and erroneous translations. Then, we measure the performance of 5 Quality Estimation systems by checking their ability to distinguish between the correct and the erroneous translations. The detailed results are much more informative about the ability of each system. The fact that different Quality Estimation systems perform differently at various phenomena confirms the usefulness of the Test Suite.

Benchmarks for evaluating large language models on register-transfer-level (RTL) hardware design have proliferated rapidly, yet none reports having applied mutation testing, an established hardware-verification technique for quantifying testbench quality, to ask whether its own testbenches are trustworthy. A testbench that never fails is not evidence of a correct design; it may simply never stimulate the logic that is actually broken. We introduce GateTruth, a mutation-testing engine and methodology for auditing RTL benchmark testbench rigor: inject a deterministic, seeded set of semantic mutants into a reference design and measure what fraction the testbench catches. We validate the methodology against our own 68-task, dual-track reference suite -- 60 specification-to-RTL generation tasks and 8 agentic-repair tasks, scored through a pinned, deterministic synthesis-to-timing flow with correctness enforced as a strict gate -- certifying that 46 of 60 Track A testbenches kill at least 95% of injected mutants under sequential, reproducible execution; we disclose why the other 14 do not, including a Goodhart effect on testbenches revised to pass this gate. We then point the same engine, unmodified, at RTLLM v2.0, a widely adopted external benchmark: of 46 auditable designs, 72% fall below the 95% floor our own suite is held to, and three score 0% outright. A comparable audit of NVIDIA's CVDP benchmark is structurally impossible: its public release withholds reference solutions, removing the golden RTL mutation testing requires. Auditing our own instrument also surfaced a second finding: an initially uniform 4096-token output cap silently truncated three of seven evaluated models, and re-running at 16,384 tokens moved one model from fifth place to first. We argue mutation-kill certification should become a standard reporting requirement for RTL-generation benchmarks generally.

The integration of AI-powered coding agents into Continuous Integration/Continuous Delivery (CI/CD) pipelines has fundamentally altered how software verification is conducted. While these agents successfully automate the test generation, current evaluation benchmarks (e.g., SWE-bench) largely focus on pass-rates rather than the intrinsic quality of the generated tests. This raises the possibility of "stealth technical debt", in which test suites pass execution but do not offer comprehensive coverage or semantic value. We address this methodological gap through a large-scale, empirical comparison of 204,673 test artifacts which comprises of 24,941 human-authored files and 179,732 agent-generated files; sourced from the AIDev dataset. Using the Abstract Syntax Tree (AST) parsing with Python's naive ast module, we implemented a "white-box" static analysis framework to evaluate three quality dimensions: Assertion Strength (RQ1), Edge-Case Coverage (RQ2), and Flakiness Potential (RQ3). Our results present a nuanced inversion of traditional assumptions. AI agents performed better than humans in Edge-Case Coverage, with almost twice the variety of boundary checks (Variety Score: 0.62 vs 0.32) and a higher frequency of null-safety testing (13.40% vs. 8.3%), even though human developers had a slight advantage in Assertion Strength (88.1% strong assertions vs. 85.37% for agents). But this thoroughness comes at a price: due mostly to their reliance on file I/O and non-deterministic logic, agent-generated tests exhibited a higher risk of flakiness (Candidate Rate: 0.41 vs. 0.30). These findings suggest that while AI agents excel at rigorous boundary testing, they lack the "environmental awareness" needed to write stable, hermetic tests.

Large language model (LLM) coding agents have advanced test generation across diverse programming tasks. However, the common practice of evaluating tests against a single reference solution overlooks alternative valid implementations and can overstate test quality. We introduce TestPrism, comprising 300 test tasks from 17 sources and 3000 candidate implementations, evenly split between valid and invalid solutions. Its primary metric, Joint Success Function, requires the generated tests to fail on the initial program state, accept every valid candidate, and reject every invalid candidate. Across fourteen baseline coding agent configurations, Joint Success Function reaches only 28.00%, whereas single reference success reaches 59.67%. Our analysis reveals missed behaviors, unsupported assertions, and faulty test construction. To address these weaknesses, we introduce TestHelix, which combines heterogeneous synthesis of test and repair pairs with peer cross validation and recursive self improvement (RSI). Across two models, TestHelix improves Joint Success Function by 8.67 to 9.00 percentage points over the native harness comparators in the TestHelix evaluation

Selecting LLM-generated code candidates using LLM-generated tests is challenging because the tests themselves may be incorrect. Existing methods either treat all tests equally or rely on ad-hoc heuristics to filter unreliable tests. Yet determining test correctness requires knowing which codes are correct, creating a circular dependency. Our key insight is that we need not determine test correctness at all: test votes should rank, not merely count. What matters is not how many codes pass a test, but whether the test can distinguish correct from incorrect code. We break the circular dependency via leave-one-out evaluation: hold out one test, rank codes by their aggregate scores on all remaining tests, and measure whether the held-out test's pass/fail pattern agrees with this ranking. We formalize this agreement as the leave-one-out AUC~(LOO-AUC) and prove that the expected LOO-AUC is proportional to each test's ability to separate correct code from incorrect code. Building on this, we propose ACES~(AUC ConsistEncy Scoring) with two complementary variants: ACES-C provides closed-form weights that provably approximate the oracle in expectation under a mild assumption on average test quality; ACES-O drops this assumption and iteratively optimizes a differentiable LOO-AUC objective. Both operate solely on the binary pass matrix with negligible overhead, and achieve state-of-the-art Pass@k on multiple code generation benchmarks.

The automated generation of test code can reduce the time and effort required to build software while increasing its correctness and robustness. In this paper, we present RE-ASSERT, an approach for the automated generation of JUnit test asserts which produces more accurate asserts than previous work with fewer constraints. This is achieved by targeting projects individually, using precise code-to-test traceability for learning and by generating assert statements from the method-under-test directly without the need to write an assert-less test first. We also utilise Reformer, a state-of-the-art deep learning model, along with two models from previous work to evaluate ReAssert and an existing approach, known as ATLAS, using lexical accuracy,uniqueness, and dynamic analysis. Our evaluation of ReAssert shows up to 44% of generated asserts for a single project match exactly with the ground truth, increasing to 51% for generated asserts that compile. We also improve on the ATLAS results through our use of Reformer with 28% of generated asserts matching exactly with the ground truth. Reformer also produces the greatest proportion of unique asserts (71%), giving further evidence that Reformer produces the most useful asserts.

To support software developers in finding and fixing software bugs, several automated program repair techniques have been introduced. Given a test suite, standard methods usually either synthesize a repair, or navigate a search space of software edits to find test-suite passing variants. Recent program repair methods are based on deep learning approaches. One of these novel methods, which is not primarily intended for automated program repair, but is still suitable for it, is ChatGPT. The bug fixing performance of ChatGPT, however, is so far unclear. Therefore, in this paper we evaluate ChatGPT on the standard bug fixing benchmark set, QuixBugs, and compare the performance with the results of several other approaches reported in the literature. We find that ChatGPT's bug fixing performance is competitive to the common deep learning approaches CoCoNut and Codex and notably better than the results reported for the standard program repair approaches. In contrast to previous approaches, ChatGPT offers a dialogue system through which further information, e.g., the expected output for a certain input or an observed error message, can be entered. By providing such hints to ChatGPT, its success rate can be further increased, fixing 31 out of 40 bugs, outperforming state-of-the-art.

Coding agents are increasingly used to create large software projects. While code-generation benchmarks have scaled accordingly to full applications, test-generation benchmarks remain limited to individual functions or bug fixes. In particular, generating complete test suites for complex software from scratch remains unexplored. To address this gap, we introduce TestSuiteBench, a benchmark of 165 open-source applications, each with a structured and detailed specification of intended behavior, a reference implementation, a reference test suite, and on average 74 mutants. Each mutant is generated from a single requirement of the specification and refined to isolate that behavior: 73\% are killed by exactly one reference test and, on average, by only 0.2\% of the remaining tests. We find that even frontier coding agents struggle to generate strong test suites given our specifications, achieving mutation scores below 60\%, despite their suites being largely valid and 88\% of their tests passing on the reference implementation. We observe that generated test suites often lack relevant input combinations and are smaller than reference test suites. Meanwhile, implementations generated for the same specifications pass 82\% of the reference tests. These results show agents can build software they cannot verify, a gap that directly limits fully autonomous software development.

Agent evaluations are increasingly used to compare LLMs and inform deployment decisions, yet ranks can reflect not only the model but also the effects of the evaluation conditions such as the scaffolds or tasks. This makes reliability claim-dependent: an evaluation that reliably ranks deployed systems may not reliably rank underlying models. We ask which conclusions current agent evaluations reliably support and what additional evaluation would improve them. We develop a Bayesian variance-decomposition framework for sparse, imbalanced agent leaderboards and apply it to 22 benchmarks from the Holistic Agent Leaderboard and Harbor Index. The framework separates signal, performance differences relevant to the intended claim, from noise, irrelevant variation that can still change rankings. We find: (1) Reliability depends on the measurement goal. Fixed model-scaffold systems are ranked reliably (0.935-0.994), while underlying-model reliability is substantially lower (0.148-0.841). (2) Scaffold choice can change conclusions. Inter-scaffold reliability measures whether scaffolds preserve model rankings, showing that scaffold effects vary substantially across evaluations. (3) More tasks cannot resolve all uncertainty. Even infinitely many similarly constructed tasks improve model-ranking reliability of a benchmark by at most 0.097 when uncertainty is dominated by limited scaffold coverage. (4) Pooling diverse benchmarks can improve cross-task rankings at lower cost. For rankings across diverse agentic tasks, pooling benchmarks raises projected reliability from 0.44 to 0.75 at the same task budget and can reduce projected cost by up to 83\%. Evaluation design should follow the intended claim: identify what a score or ranking should mean, diagnose what limits its reliability, and spend evaluation budget on the sources of uncertainty that matter.

Autonomous agents increasingly perform bounded software tasks under an orchestrator that retries, resumes, and budgets them. The machinery such orchestrators reach for is the service mesh's: retry, timeout, and error-rate circuit breaking. We report a failure study of a production agentic software-delivery platform over 147 numbered incidents spanning 81 runs, each with a measured cost and, in most cases, a mutation proof reproducing the failure. All three assumptions those primitives rest on are violated in practice, and we quantify the consequences: a loop of fifty-four consecutive successful tool calls no error-rate breaker could see; a progress signal constant by construction, guaranteeing a false trip on the third repair round and driving one run from six of six components to three; twenty-one events accumulated across six invocations of one delegation, making a correct, idempotent component unwinnable; a misrouted failure that woke five components for a two-component fault, leaving three bystanders regressing working code; and twelve incidents in which the enforcement layer blocked correct work, the most expensive costing 107 agent turns and zero accepted writes. We find one cross-cutting cause and its dual. Identity adequacy: in five separate subsystems an identity that failed to discriminate produced a confident wrong answer, and two of them derived the corrective rule independently. Evidence adequacy: a reliability decision may be taken only on evidence capable of moving, attributable to what it measures, and deterministic under identical conditions. From the findings we derive seven reliability primitives whose enforcement unit is the delegation rather than the message, and specify the controlled evaluation the study motivates but does not constitute.

Null Hypothesis Significance Testing is the de facto tool for assessing effectiveness differences between Information Retrieval systems. Researchers use statistical tests to check whether those differences will generalise to online settings or are just due to the samples observed in the laboratory. Much work has been devoted to studying which test is the most reliable when comparing a pair of systems, but most of the IR real-world experiments involve more than two. In the multiple comparisons scenario, testing several systems simultaneously may inflate the errors committed by the tests. In this paper, we use a new approach to assess the reliability of multiple comparison procedures using simulated and real TREC data. Experiments show that Wilcoxon plus the Benjamini-Hochberg correction yields Type I error rates according to the significance level for typical sample sizes while being the best test in terms of statistical power.

Tests that cause spurious failures without any code changes, i.e., flaky tests, hamper regression testing, increase maintenance costs, may shadow real bugs, and decrease trust in tests. While the prevalence and importance of flakiness is well established, prior research focused on Java projects, thus raising the question of how the findings generalize. In order to provide a better understanding of the role of flakiness in software development beyond Java, we empirically study the prevalence, causes, and degree of flakiness within software written in Python, one of the currently most popular programming languages. For this, we sampled 22352 open source projects from the popular PyPI package index, and analyzed their 876186 test cases for flakiness. Our investigation suggests that flakiness is equally prevalent in Python as it is in Java. The reasons, however, are different: Order dependency is a much more dominant problem in Python, causing 59% of the 7571 flaky tests in our dataset. Another 28% were caused by test infrastructure problems, which represent a previously undocumented cause of flakiness. The remaining 13% can mostly be attributed to the use of network and randomness APIs by the projects, which is indicative of the type of software commonly written in Python. Our data also suggests that finding flaky tests requires more runs than are often done in the literature: A 95% confidence that a passing test case is not flaky on average would require 170 reruns.

Test-Time Scaling (TTS) improves LLM reasoning by exploring multiple candidate responses and then operating over this set to find the best output. A tacit premise behind TTS is that sufficiently diverse candidate pools enhance reliability. In this work, we show that this assumption in TTS introduces a previously unrecognized failure mode. When candidate diversity is curtailed, even by a modest amount, TTS becomes much more likely to produce unsafe outputs. We present a reference-guided diversity reduction protocol (RefDiv) that serves as a diagnostic attack to stress test TTS pipelines. Through extensive experiments across open-source models (e.g. Qwen3, Mistral, Llama3.1, Gemma3) and two widely used TTS strategies (Monte Carlo Tree Search and Best-of-N), constraining diversity consistently signifies the rate at which TTS produces unsafe results. The effect is often stronger than that produced by prompts directly with high adversarial intent scores. This observed phenomenon also transfers across TTS strategies and to closed-source models (e.g. OpenAI o3-mini and Gemini-2.5-Pro), thus indicating that this is a general and extant property of TTS rather than a model-specific artifact. Additionally, we find that numerous widely used safety guardrail classifiers (e.g. Llama-Guard), are unable to flag the adversarial input prompts generated by RefDiv, demonstrating that existing defenses offer limited protection against this diversity-driven failure mode.

Aggregate accuracy summarizes how often a model is correct, but not which judgments remain correct when requests change. We evaluate Jev and nine language models on ContractNLI, with repeated requests that preserve the contract and target while varying visible hypotheses, requested answers, and output order. A four-model follow-up adds an equal-call repetition control and coverage of the remaining test contracts. Corrections and regressions can cancel, leaving unchanged accuracy despite changed decisions; consistent answers can also preserve errors. Majority voting over recorded responses yields small, uncertain gains, with repeated wrong answers accounting for much of the observed error. Gold-class diagnostics further reveal different error profiles behind aggregate model rankings. Resource comparisons add distinct trade-offs: Jev is cheapest and fastest for the joint baseline, while hosted language models achieve higher accuracy. Together, these findings connect decision-level evaluation to whether additional calls improve correctness and what the resulting decisions cost.

Unit tests play a key role in ensuring the correctness of software. However, manually creating unit tests is a laborious task, motivating the need for automation. Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently been applied to this problem, utilizing additional training or few-shot learning on examples of existing tests. This paper presents a large-scale empirical evaluation on the effectiveness of LLMs for automated unit test generation without additional training or manual effort, providing the LLM with the signature and implementation of the function under test, along with usage examples extracted from documentation. We also attempt to repair failed generated tests by re-prompting the model with the failing test and error message. We implement our approach in TestPilot, a test generation tool for JavaScript that automatically generates unit tests for all API functions in an npm package. We evaluate TestPilot using OpenAI's gpt3.5-turbo LLM on 25 npm packages with a total of 1,684 API functions. The generated tests achieve a median statement coverage of 70.2% and branch coverage of 52.8%, significantly improving on Nessie, a recent feedback-directed JavaScript test generation technique, which achieves only 51.3% statement coverage and 25.6% branch coverage. We also find that 92.8% of TestPilot's generated tests have no more than 50% similarity with existing tests (as measured by normalized edit distance), with none of them being exact copies. Finally, we run TestPilot with two additional LLMs, OpenAI's older code-cushman-002 LLM and the open LLM StarCoder. Overall, we observed similar results with the former (68.2% median statement coverage), and somewhat worse results with the latter (54.0% median statement coverage), suggesting that the effectiveness of the approach is influenced by the size and training set of the LLM, but does not fundamentally depend on the specific model.

Given a black-box AI system and a task, at what confidence level can a practitioner trust the system's output? We answer with a reliability level -- a single number per system-task pair, derived from self-consistency sampling and conformal calibration, that serves as a black-box deployment gate with exact, finite-sample, distribution-free guarantees. Self-consistency sampling reduces uncertainty exponentially; conformal calibration guarantees correctness within 1/(n+1) of the target level, regardless of the system's errors -- made transparently visible through larger answer sets for harder questions. Weaker models earn lower reliability levels (not accuracy -- see Definition 2.4): GPT-4.1 earns 94.6% on GSM8K and 96.8% on TruthfulQA, while GPT-4.1-nano earns 89.8% on GSM8K and 66.5% on MMLU. We validate across five benchmarks, five models from three families, and both synthetic and real data. Conditional coverage on solvable items exceeds 0.93 across all configurations; sequential stopping reduces API costs by around 50%.

Reusable Web-agent verification requires a rule to follow changing requirements and support subsequent execution. We introduce AgentProofBench, which connects paired tests of a frozen acceptance rule to execution from identical saved openings. The resource spans 97 tasks, 79 families, and four Web services. Experiments with DeepSeek Flash/Pro establish two linked measurements. Across 48 families, complete-panel and decision-replay tests retain 82/96 Flash and 79/96 Pro source programs; paired reuse-rebuild BA intervals are [-5.47, 1.57] and [-10.16, 0.00] percentage points. Across 22 execution families, deployment-state panel correctness separates program assignments whose two saved openings are both delivered correctly: 32/33 assignments with error-free panels, versus 1/11 with panel errors. All reference-defined program-gate regressions and withheld deliveries occur in the latter group. Neutral continuation attains the highest correct delivery under the tested generic feedback, providing a concrete baseline for measuring the value added by a gate. Released instructions, states, programs, reference rules, and trajectories connect each test failure to its execution consequences. AgentProofBench makes reusable verification assessable at both the requirement and policy levels.

Recent advancements in the field of natural language generation have facilitated the use of large language models to assess the quality of generated text. Although these models have shown promising results in tasks such as machine translation and summarization, their applicability in code generation tasks remains limited without human involvement. The complexity of programming concepts required for such tasks makes it difficult to develop evaluation metrics that align with human judgment. Token-matching-based metrics, such as BLEU, have demonstrated weak correlations with human practitioners in code generation tasks. Moreover, the utilization of human-written test suites to evaluate functional correctness can be challenging in domains with low resources. To overcome these obstacles, we propose a new evaluation framework based on the GPT-3.5 (GPT-3.5-turbo), for code generation assessments. Our framework addresses the limitations of existing approaches by achieving superior correlations with functional correctness and human preferences, without the need for test oracles or references. We evaluate the efficacy of our framework on two different tasks and four programming languages, comparing its performance with the state-of-the-art CodeBERTScore metric, which relies on a pre-trained model. Our results demonstrate that our framework surpasses CodeBERTScore, delivering high levels of accuracy and consistency across various programming languages and tasks. We also make our evaluation framework and datasets available to the public at https://github.com/terryyz/llm-code-eval, encouraging further research in the evaluation of code generation.

We introduce SWE Atlas, a benchmark suite for coding agents spanning three professional software engineering workflows: Codebase Q&A (124 tasks), Test Writing (90 tasks), and Refactoring (70 tasks). SWE Atlas differs from prior SWE benchmarks in three key ways: it targets underrepresented but practically important task categories, uses comprehensive category-specific evaluation protocols, and adopts under-specified, agentic task formulations that better reflect real-world usage. Its evaluation framework combines programmatic checks with rubric-based assessment. This goes beyond functional correctness, evaluating software engineering quality, including test and refactor completeness, maintainability, reusable abstractions, and codebase hygiene. We evaluate a range of frontier and open-weight models on SWE Atlas and find that GPT-5.4 and Opus 4.7 achieve the strongest overall performance, while even the best open-weight models score poorly. Our analysis suggests that top models rely on extensive codebase exploration and runtime-driven reasoning. However, even top models consistently struggle with subtle edge cases, complex runtime analysis, and adherence to software engineering best practices. Overall, SWE Atlas provides a complementary evaluation suite for measuring both correctness and engineering quality in coding agents.

Unit testing is an essential part of the software development process, which helps to identify issues with source code in early stages of development and prevent regressions. Machine learning has emerged as viable approach to help software developers generate automated unit tests. However, generating reliable unit test cases that are semantically correct and capable of catching software bugs or unintended behavior via machine learning requires large, metadata-rich, datasets. In this paper we present Methods2Test: A dataset of focal methods mapped to test cases: a large, supervised dataset of test cases mapped to corresponding methods under test (i.e., focal methods). This dataset contains 780,944 pairs of JUnit tests and focal methods, extracted from a total of 91,385 Java open source projects hosted on GitHub with licenses permitting re-distribution. The main challenge behind the creation of the Methods2Test was to establish a reliable mapping between a test case and the relevant focal method. To this aim, we designed a set of heuristics, based on developers' best practices in software testing, which identify the likely focal method for a given test case. To facilitate further analysis, we store a rich set of metadata for each method-test pair in JSON-formatted files. Additionally, we extract textual corpus from the dataset at different context levels, which we provide both in raw and tokenized forms, in order to enable researchers to train and evaluate machine learning models for Automated Test Generation. Methods2Test is publicly available at: https://github.com/microsoft/methods2test

AI tools are accelerating scientific publication while the systems that review it struggle to keep up, and independent verification of published research has become both harder and more important. As manual replication is slow and expensive, a growing line of work uses coding agents to automate parts of the process. Existing efforts are largely packaged as benchmarks with companion agents that only run inside the benchmark's own pipeline, and no general-purpose replication tool exists. We present VERITAS, a domain-agnostic replication framework built around CLI coding agents. Given a paper, a code repository, or both, VERITAS extracts the paper's claims, runs the methodology while resolving issues as they arise, and judges each claim against the evidence from experiment runs. The pipeline returns an importance-weighted Replication Score, a severity-rated log of every fix applied, and the patched codebase. We evaluate VERITAS on CORE-Bench and ReplicationBench, 65 papers spanning computer science, social science, medicine, and astrophysics. Against two strong Claude Code baselines on the same model and host environment, VERITAS achieves state-of-the-art performance and leads on every metric on both benchmarks.

Selecting the best code solution from multiple generated ones is an essential task in code generation, which can be achieved by using some reliable validators (e.g., developer-written test cases) for assistance. Since reliable test cases are not always available and can be expensive to build in practice, researchers propose to automatically generate test cases to assess code solutions. However, when both code solutions and test cases are plausible and not reliable, selecting the best solution becomes challenging. Although some heuristic strategies have been proposed to tackle this problem, they lack a strong theoretical guarantee and it is still an open question whether an optimal selection strategy exists. Our work contributes in two ways. First, we show that within a Bayesian framework, the optimal selection strategy can be defined based on the posterior probability of the observed passing states between solutions and tests. The problem of identifying the best solution is then framed as an integer programming problem. Second, we propose an efficient approach for approximating this optimal (yet uncomputable) strategy, where the approximation error is bounded by the correctness of prior knowledge. We then incorporate effective prior knowledge to tailor code generation tasks. Both theoretical and empirical studies confirm that existing heuristics are limited in selecting the best solutions with plausible test cases. Our proposed approximated optimal strategy B4 significantly surpasses existing heuristics in selecting code solutions generated by large language models (LLMs) with LLM-generated tests, achieving a relative performance improvement by up to 50% over the strongest heuristic and 246% over the random selection in the most challenging scenarios. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/ZJU-CTAG/B4.

Reliable confidence estimation is increasingly central to the trustworthy deployment of language models: a calibrated estimate of the probability that an output is correct decides what to ship, what to escalate, and what to retry. Existing confidence estimators, however, share one design premise: they only read the current inference process, either by introspecting on it, scoring its token probabilities, or resampling it. We argue that the current inference is not a sufficient basis for confidence. We propose XConf (eXperiential Confidence): estimating confidence together with the model's accumulated experience. The experience is stored as a record of the model's own graded past episodes, each holding the task, the model's reflection, its stated confidence, the outcome, and a lesson written once the grade arrived. Given a new task, XConf's Recall stage retrieves past episodes on similar tasks met with a similar stated confidence, and reads off their historical success rate; its Reflect stage shows the model this record, has it name its recurring failure mode, and restate a confidence now informed by its own track records. Our estimator is format-general, requiring no logit access or weight updates, and costs only one answer generation. Across nine benchmarks spanning reasoning, coding, multimodal QA, and interactive agents, and four models from three families, XConf beats or matches ten-sample self-consistency in discrimination (AUROC) on 23 of 24 comparisons, with much lower calibration error (ECE), at a tenth of the generation cost. Used for selective prediction, abstaining on the 10% least-confident episodes raises the delivered success rate by up to 8.7 points on agent tasks. We therefore see experiential confidence estimation as a new paradigm for future general-purpose confidence estimation.

Banking assistants must use account-specific information to answer requests and, in many cases, take actions through tools. Evaluating only the final response misses important errors. An assistant may ask for information it already has, rely on stale context, select the wrong account, or write an invalid value after stating the correct one. We introduce IndicBankBench, a 799-case benchmark for Indian retail banking spanning five operational domains, a capability/refusal domain, and twenty primary axes. Cases are evaluated at four stages: safety, action and tool use, response adequacy, and advisory quality. Tool use and most safety checks are deterministic. A narrow resolver handles only ambiguous confirmation-before-write cases, while a separate LLM judge evaluates semantic response adequacy. We run every case three times and report strict pass^3, which requires success on all trials. Across the eleven evaluated models, strict reliability ranges from 43.7% to 58.2%, whereas at-least-once success ranges from 60% to 74%. This gap shows that at-least-once success can overstate dependable banking behavior. The case-level diagnostics also distinguish systems that ask unnecessary questions from those that act but fail to reconcile customer context or fully resolve the request. We release the cases, mock environment, and evaluation harness.

Generative AI is gaining increasing attention in software engineering, where testing remains an indispensable reliability mechanism. According to the widely adopted testing pyramid, unit tests constitute the majority of test cases and are often schematic, requiring minimal domain expertise. Automatically generating such tests under the supervision of software engineers can significantly enhance productivity during the development phase of the software lifecycle. This paper investigates the impact of code context and prompting strategies on the quality and adequacy of unit tests generated by various large language models (LLMs) across several families. The results show that including docstrings notably improves code adequacy, while further extending context to the full implementation yields definitely smaller gains. Notably, the chain-of-thought prompting strategy -- applied even to 'reasoning' models -- achieves the best results, with up to 96.3\% branch coverage, a 57\% average mutation score, and near-perfect compilation success rate. Among the evaluated models, M5 (Gemini 2.5 Pro) demonstrated superior performance in both mutation score and branch coverage being still in top in terms of compilation success rate. All the code and resulting test suites are publicly available at https://github.com/peetery/LLM-analysis.

Handwritten STEM exams capture open-ended reasoning and diagrams, but manual grading is slow and difficult to scale. We present an end-to-end workflow for grading scanned handwritten engineering quizzes with multimodal large language models (LLMs) that preserves the standard exam process (A4 paper, unconstrained student handwriting). The lecturer provides only a handwritten reference solution (100%) and a short set of grading rules; the reference is converted into a text-only summary that conditions grading without exposing the reference scan. Reliability is achieved through a multi-stage design with a format/presence check to prevent grading blank answers, an ensemble of independent graders, supervisor aggregation, and rigid templates with deterministic validation to produce auditable, machine-parseable reports. We evaluate the frozen pipeline in a clean-room protocol on a held-out real course quiz in Slovenian, including hand-drawn circuit schematics. With state-of-the-art backends (GPT-5.2 and Gemini-3 Pro), the full pipeline achieves approx8-point mean absolute difference to lecturer grades with low bias and an estimated manual-review trigger rate of approx17% at D_{max}=40. Ablations show that trivial prompting and removing the reference solution substantially degrade accuracy and introduce systematic over-grading, confirming that structured prompting and reference grounding are essential.

Software testing is a crucial aspect of software development, and the creation of high-quality tests that adhere to best practices is essential for effective maintenance. Recently, Large Language Models (LLMs) have gained popularity for code generation, including the automated creation of test cases. However, these LLMs are often trained on vast amounts of publicly available code, which may include test cases that do not adhere to best practices and may even contain test smells (anti-patterns). To address this issue, we propose a novel technique called Reinforcement Learning from Static Quality Metrics (RLSQM). To begin, we analyze the anti-patterns generated by the LLM and show that LLMs can generate undesirable test smells. Thus, we train specific reward models for each static quality metric, then utilize Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO) to train models for optimizing a single quality metric at a time. Furthermore, we amalgamate these rewards into a unified reward model aimed at capturing different best practices and quality aspects of tests. By comparing RL-trained models with those trained using supervised learning, we provide insights into how reliably utilize RL to improve test generation quality and into the effects of various training strategies. Our experimental results demonstrate that the RL-optimized model consistently generated high-quality test cases compared to the base LLM, improving the model by up to 21%, and successfully generates nearly 100% syntactically correct code. RLSQM also outperformed GPT-4 on four out of seven metrics. This represents a significant step towards enhancing the overall efficiency and reliability of software testing through Reinforcement Learning and static quality metrics. Our data are available at this link: https://figshare.com/s/ded476c8d4c221222849.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in software engineering, their application to unit testing remains largely confined to isolated test generation or oracle prediction, neglecting the broader challenge of test suite maintenance. We introduce TAM-Eval (Test Automated Maintenance Evaluation), a framework and benchmark designed to evaluate model performance across three core test maintenance scenarios: creation, repair, and updating of test suites. Unlike prior work limited to function-level tasks, TAM-Eval operates at the test file level, while maintaining access to full repository context during isolated evaluation, better reflecting real-world maintenance workflows. Our benchmark comprises 1,539 automatically extracted and validated scenarios from Python, Java, and Go projects. TAM-Eval supports system-agnostic evaluation of both raw LLMs and agentic workflows, using a reference-free protocol based on test suite pass rate, code coverage, and mutation testing. Empirical results indicate that state-of-the-art LLMs have limited capabilities in realistic test maintenance processes and yield only marginal improvements in test effectiveness. We release TAM-Eval as an open-source framework to support future research in automated software testing. Our data and code are publicly available at https://github.com/trndcenter/TAM-Eval.

Code generation techniques generate code snippets automatically based on the problem requirements in natural language. Recently, large language models (LLMs) achieve the SOTA performance on code generation. However, LLMs still struggle at times to generate accurate code, which diminishes their promised efficiency as developers must spend significant effort evaluating and debugging the generated code. To improve the reliability and quality of the generated codes, researchers propose to leverage Consistency to obtain a better code based on generating and ranking multiple candidates. The existing approach is problematic as Consistency thinks a code is better when (1) the code pass more tests (inter-consistency) (2) more codes share the same behavior (intra-consistency). However, because the tests are also generated by LLMs, they could be wrong as well. As a result, majority voting based on testing results is unreliable. Relying solely on consistency is insufficient to address this issue; integrating user feedback is essential for effectively guiding consistency. We show that with minimal human effort, performance can be significantly enhanced. We propose Consistency-Augmented Iterative Interaction Framework to Enhance the Reliability of Code Generation, ConAIR, which is an approach that aims to improve the performance of a code generator through two distinctive ingredients, i.e., (1) lightweight user effort for validating the correctness of selected tests; and (2) a dynamic strategy for ranking, localizing and correcting multiple tests and codes. Overall, we propose a lightweight interaction framework that incorporates user feedback to correct identified tests and guide the iterative process. The iteration rounds are only 4 in average with the help of consistency. With only lightweight human efforts, we can achieve an improvement of 33% towards the base model.

Testing is an integral part of the software development process. Yet, writing tests is time-consuming and therefore often neglected. Classical test generation tools such as EvoSuite generate behavioral test suites by optimizing for coverage, but tend to produce tests that are hard to understand. Language models trained on code can generate code that is highly similar to that written by humans, but current models are trained to generate each file separately, as is standard practice in natural language processing, and thus fail to consider the code-under-test context when producing a test file. In this work, we propose the Aligned Code And Tests Language Model (CAT-LM), a GPT-style language model with 2.7 Billion parameters, trained on a corpus of Python and Java projects. We utilize a novel pretraining signal that explicitly considers the mapping between code and test files when available. We also drastically increase the maximum sequence length of inputs to 8,192 tokens, 4x more than typical code generation models, to ensure that the code context is available to the model when generating test code. We analyze its usefulness for realistic applications, showing that sampling with filtering (e.g., by compilability, coverage) allows it to efficiently produce tests that achieve coverage similar to ones written by developers while resembling their writing style. By utilizing the code context, CAT-LM generates more valid tests than even much larger language models trained with more data (CodeGen 16B and StarCoder) and substantially outperforms a recent test-specific model (TeCo) at test completion. Overall, our work highlights the importance of incorporating software-specific insights when training language models for code and paves the way to more powerful automated test generation.

Large language models for code generation increasingly rely on synthetic data, where both problem solutions and verification tests are generated by models. While this enables scalable data creation, it introduces a previously unexplored bottleneck: the verification ceiling, in which the quality and diversity of training data are fundamentally constrained by the capabilities of synthetic verifiers. In this work, we systematically study how verification design and strategies influence model performance. We investigate (i) what we verify by analyzing the impact of test complexity and quantity: richer test suites improve code generation capabilities (on average +3 pass@1), while quantity alone yields diminishing returns, (ii) how we verify by exploring relaxed pass thresholds: rigid 100% pass criteria can be overly restrictive. By allowing for relaxed thresholds or incorporating LLM-based soft verification, we can recover valuable training data, leading to a 2-4 point improvement in pass@1 performance. However, this benefit is contingent upon the strength and diversity of the test cases used, and (iii) why verification remains necessary through controlled comparisons of formally correct versus incorrect solutions and human evaluation: retaining diverse correct solutions per problem yields consistent generalization gains. Our results show that Verification as currently practiced is too rigid, filtering out valuable diversity. But it cannot be discarded, only recalibrated. By combining calibrated verification with diverse, challenging problem-solution pairs, we outline a path to break the verification ceiling and unlock stronger code generation models.

The past year has seen rapid acceleration in the development of large language models (LLMs). However, without proper steering and safeguards, LLMs will readily follow malicious instructions, provide unsafe advice, and generate toxic content. We introduce SimpleSafetyTests (SST) as a new test suite for rapidly and systematically identifying such critical safety risks. The test suite comprises 100 test prompts across five harm areas that LLMs, for the vast majority of applications, should refuse to comply with. We test 11 open-access and open-source LLMs and four closed-source LLMs, and find critical safety weaknesses. While some of the models do not give a single unsafe response, most give unsafe responses to more than 20% of the prompts, with over 50% unsafe responses in the extreme. Prepending a safety-emphasising system prompt substantially reduces the occurrence of unsafe responses, but does not completely stop them from happening. Trained annotators labelled every model response to SST (n = 3,000). We use these annotations to evaluate five AI safety filters (which assess whether a models' response is unsafe given a prompt) as a way of automatically evaluating models' performance on SST. The filters' performance varies considerably. There are also differences across the five harm areas, and on the unsafe versus safe responses. The widely-used Perspective API has 72% accuracy and a newly-created zero-shot prompt to OpenAI's GPT-4 performs best with 89% accuracy. Content Warning: This paper contains prompts and responses that relate to child abuse, suicide, self-harm and eating disorders, scams and fraud, illegal items, and physical harm.

Existing benchmarks for tool-using LLM agents primarily report single-run success rates and miss reliability properties required in production. We introduce ReliabilityBench, a benchmark for evaluating agent reliability across three dimensions: (i) consistency under repeated execution using pass^k, (ii) robustness to semantically equivalent task perturbations at intensity ε, and (iii) fault tolerance under controlled tool/API failures at intensity λ. ReliabilityBench contributes a unified reliability surface R(k,ε,λ), action metamorphic relations that define correctness via end-state equivalence rather than text similarity, and a chaos-engineering-style fault injection framework (timeouts, rate limits, partial responses, schema drift). We evaluate two models (Gemini 2.0 Flash, GPT-4o) and two agent architectures (ReAct, Reflexion) across four domains (scheduling, travel, customer support, e-commerce) over 1,280 episodes. Perturbations alone reduce success from 96.9% at ε=0 to 88.1% at ε=0.2. Rate limiting is the most damaging fault in ablations. ReAct is more robust than Reflexion under combined stress, and Gemini 2.0 Flash achieves comparable reliability to GPT-4o at much lower cost. ReliabilityBench provides a systematic framework for assessing production readiness of LLM agents.

Writing good software tests can be challenging, therefore approaches that support developers are desirable. While generating complete tests automatically is such an approach commonly proposed in research, developers may already have specific test scenarios in mind and thus just require help in selecting the most suitable test assertions for these scenarios. This can be done using deep learning models to predict assertions for given test code. Prior research on assertion generation trained these models specifically for the task, raising the question how much the use of larger models pre-trained on code that have emerged since then can improve their performance. In particular, while abstracting identifiers has been shown to improve specifically trained models, it remains unclear whether this also generalises to models pre-trained on non-abstracted code. Finally, even though prior work demonstrated high accuracy it remains unclear how this translates into the effectiveness of the assertions at their intended application -- finding faults. To shed light on these open questions, in this paper we propose AsserT5, a new model based on the pre-trained CodeT5 model, and use this to empirically study assertion generation. We find that the abstraction and the inclusion of the focal method are useful also for a fine-tuned pre-trained model, resulting in test assertions that match the ground truth assertions precisely in up to 59.5\% of cases, more than twice as precise as prior models. However, evaluation on real bugs from the Defects4J dataset shows that out of 138 bugs detectable with assertions in real-world projects, AsserT5 was only able to suggest fault-finding assertions for 33, indicating the need for further improvements.

Writing competitive programming problems is exacting. Authors must: set constraints, input distributions, and edge cases that rule out shortcuts; target specific algorithms (e.g., max-flow, dynamic programming, data structures); and calibrate complexity beyond the reach of most competitors. We argue that this makes for an ideal test of general large language model capabilities and study whether they can do this reliably. We introduce AutoCode, which uses multiple rounds of validation to yield competition-grade problem statements and test cases. On held-out problems, AutoCode test suites approach 99% consistency with official judgments, a significant improvement over current state-of-the-art methods like HardTests, which achieve less than 81%. Furthermore, starting with a random seed problem, AutoCode can create novel variants with reference and brute-force solutions. By cross-verifying these generated solutions against test cases, we can further filter out malformed problems. Our system ensures high correctness, as verified by human experts. AutoCode successfully produces novel problems judged by Grandmaster-level (top 0.3%) competitive programmers to be of contest quality.

Coding-agent benchmarks are built for broad and comprehensive comparisons, not frequent development decisions. Individual runs vary, full suites are expensive, and the benchmark harness may differ from the harness used in practice. In a resampling analysis of DeepSWE's published trials, only 19.5% of tasks (22 of 113) had a fifth-percentile Pearson correlation of at least 0.50 with full-benchmark performance. The paper presents DeltaSelect, an open-source method that identifies tasks whose one-run results consistently track full-benchmark performance using Pearson correlation, maps fractional verifier results to a common score using linear regression, and selects a fixed task set within a dollar budget. DeltaSelect is intended for repeated baseline-versus-candidate comparisons during development, not model rankings. In a gpt-5.6-luna low-reasoning case study, DeltaSelect was used to revise custom skills and instructions. Across 13 evaluations, the recorded cost was USD 27.86 at rates published August 16, 2026. The adopted version cost 58.1% less than the initial version (USD 1.75 versus USD 4.18; p=0.008), while the calibrated score was higher (42.36% versus 36.46%; published-analog variance p=0.326).

Context: Test-driven development (TDD) is a widely employed software development practice that involves developing test cases based on requirements prior to writing the code. Although various methods for automated test case generation have been proposed, they are not specifically tailored for TDD, where requirements instead of code serve as input. Objective: In this paper, we introduce a text-to-testcase generation approach based on a large language model (GPT-3.5) that is fine-tuned on our curated dataset with an effective prompt design. Method: Our approach involves enhancing the capabilities of basic GPT-3.5 for text-to-testcase generation task that is fine-tuned on our curated dataset with an effective prompting design. We evaluated the effectiveness of our approach using a span of five large-scale open-source software projects. Results: Our approach generated 7k test cases for open source projects, achieving 78.5% syntactic correctness, 67.09% requirement alignment, and 61.7% code coverage, which substantially outperforms all other LLMs (basic GPT-3.5, Bloom, and CodeT5). In addition, our ablation study demonstrates the substantial performance improvement of the fine-tuning and prompting components of the GPT-3.5 model. Conclusions: These findings lead us to conclude that fine-tuning and prompting should be considered in the future when building a language model for the text-to-testcase generation task

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed for software engineering, constructing high-quality benchmarks is crucial for evaluating not just the functional correctness, but also the formal verifiability of generated code. However, existing benchmarks are limited by the quantity and quality of positive and negative test cases, leading to an overestimation of model capabilities in generating specifications and implementations. To address this, we propose VeriScale, a novel framework driven by the adversarial implementations. It consists of two stages: test-suite expansion to construct diverse and challenging test cases, and test-suite reduction to distill them into compact yet discriminative suites. While VeriScale is general, we instantiate it on Verina to construct VerinaPlus, which expands the original test suites by over 83times, and VerinaLite, a lightweight 14times variant. Our experiments across eight state-of-the-art LLMs demonstrate that VerinaPlus exposes substantial model weaknesses hidden by the original benchmark, evidenced by sharp score drops on both SpecGen and CodeGen tasks, whereas VerinaLite maintains this discriminative power at a fraction of the evaluation cost. The enhanced benchmarks and source code are publicly available at https://github.com/XiaoyangLiu-sjtu/VeriScale.

The task of generating code solutions for a given programming problem can benefit from the use of pre-trained language models such as Codex, which can produce multiple diverse samples. However, a major challenge for this task is to select the most appropriate solution from the multiple samples generated by the pre-trained language models. A natural way to evaluate the quality and correctness of a code solution is to run it against a set of test cases, but the manual creation of such test cases is often costly and time-consuming. In this paper, we propose a novel method, CodeT, that leverages the same pre-trained language models to automatically generate test cases for the code samples, thus reducing the human effort and increasing the coverage of the test scenarios. CodeT then executes the code samples using the generated test cases, and performs a dual execution agreement, which considers both the consistency of the outputs against the generated test cases and the agreement of the outputs with other code samples. We conduct comprehensive experiments on four benchmarks, HumanEval, MBPP, APPS and CodeContests, using five different pre-trained language models with varying sizes and capabilities. Our results show that CodeT can significantly improve the performance of code solution selection over previous methods, achieving remarkable and consistent gains across different models and benchmarks. For instance, CodeT improves the pass@1 metric on HumanEval to 65.8%, which represents an absolute improvement of 18.8% over the code-davinci-002 model, and an absolute improvement of more than 20% over the previous state-of-the-art results.

The inherent rigidity of fixed-size benchmarks makes them an inefficient tool for model evaluation. Diverse evaluation objectives, including model ranking, model selection and testing throughout development, demand varying levels of statistical power. The mismatch between fixed sample sizes and these diverse needs results in either excessive computational cost or compromised reliability - a critical concern for model evaluation. To overcome these limitations, we call for adoption of sequential testing in our field. We provide an adaptive evaluation framework, that provides a principled way to navigate the trade-off between efficiency and reliability in model evaluation. Our framework combines the established statistical paradigm of sequential testing with stopping criteria tailored to common evaluation needs such as diminishing returns detection, and minimum detectable effect size. We demonstrate its ability to adaptively manage the efficiency-reliability trade-off on the Open VLM Leaderboard, including, for example, a 80% reduction in computational cost compared to fixed-size evaluation (with a 2.5-point CI width allowance) while maintaining statistical significance.

Advanced LLMs have achieved near-ceiling instruction-following accuracy on benchmarks such as IFEval. However, these impressive scores do not necessarily translate to reliable services in real-world use, where users often vary their phrasing, contextual framing, and task formulations. In this paper, we study nuance-oriented reliability: whether models exhibit consistent competence across cousin prompts that convey analogous user intents but with subtle nuances. To quantify this, we introduce a new metric, reliable@k, and develop an automated pipeline that generates high-quality cousin prompts via data augmentation. Building upon this, we construct IFEval++ for systematic evaluation. Across 20 proprietary and 26 open-source LLMs, we find that current models exhibit substantial insufficiency in nuance-oriented reliability -- their performance can drop by up to 61.8% with nuanced prompt modifications. What's more, we characterize it and explore three potential improvement recipes. Our findings highlight nuance-oriented reliability as a crucial yet underexplored next step toward more dependable and trustworthy LLM behavior. Our code and benchmark are accessible: https://github.com/jianshuod/IFEval-pp.

Automated unit test case generation tools facilitate test-driven development and support developers by suggesting tests intended to identify flaws in their code. Existing approaches are usually guided by the test coverage criteria, generating synthetic test cases that are often difficult for developers to read or understand. In this paper we propose AthenaTest, an approach that aims to generate unit test cases by learning from real-world focal methods and developer-written testcases. We formulate unit test case generation as a sequence-to-sequence learning task, adopting a two-step training procedure consisting of denoising pretraining on a large unsupervised Java corpus, and supervised finetuning for a downstream translation task of generating unit tests. We investigate the impact of natural language and source code pretraining, as well as the focal context information surrounding the focal method. Both techniques provide improvements in terms of validation loss, with pretraining yielding 25% relative improvement and focal context providing additional 11.1% improvement. We also introduce Methods2Test, the largest publicly available supervised parallel corpus of unit test case methods and corresponding focal methods in Java, which comprises 780K test cases mined from 91K open-source repositories from GitHub. We evaluate AthenaTest on five defects4j projects, generating 25K passing test cases covering 43.7% of the focal methods with only 30 attempts. We execute the test cases, collect test coverage information, and compare them with test cases generated by EvoSuite and GPT-3, finding that our approach outperforms GPT-3 and has comparable coverage w.r.t. EvoSuite. Finally, we survey professional developers on their preference in terms of readability, understandability, and testing effectiveness of the generated tests, showing overwhelmingly preference towards AthenaTest.

Multi-agent systems powered by large language models (LLMs) are transforming enterprise automation, yet systematic evaluation methodologies for assessing tool-use reliability remain underdeveloped. We introduce a comprehensive diagnostic framework that leverages big data analytics to evaluate procedural reliability in intelligent agent systems, addressing critical needs for SME-centric deployment in privacy-sensitive environments. Our approach features a 12-category error taxonomy capturing failure modes across tool initialization, parameter handling, execution, and result interpretation. Through systematic evaluation of 1,980 deterministic test instances spanning both open-weight models (Qwen2.5 series, Functionary) and proprietary alternatives (GPT-4, Claude 3.5/3.7) across diverse edge hardware configurations, we identify actionable reliability thresholds for production deployment. Our analysis reveals that procedural reliability, particularly tool initialization failures, constitutes the primary bottleneck for smaller models, while qwen2.5:32b achieves flawless performance matching GPT-4.1. The framework demonstrates that mid-sized models (qwen2.5:14b) offer practical accuracy-efficiency trade-offs on commodity hardware (96.6\% success rate, 7.3 s latency), enabling cost-effective intelligent agent deployment for resource-constrained organizations. This work establishes foundational infrastructure for systematic reliability evaluation of tool-augmented multi-agent AI systems.

Unit testing is a commonly-used approach in software engineering to test the correctness and robustness of written code. Unit tests are tests designed to test small components of a codebase in isolation, such as an individual function or method. Although unit tests have historically been written by human programmers, recent advancements in AI, particularly LLMs, have shown corresponding advances in automatic unit test generation. In this study, we explore the effect of different prompts on the quality of unit tests generated by Code Interpreter, a GPT-4-based LLM, on Python functions provided by the Quixbugs dataset, and we focus on prompting due to the ease with which users can make use of our findings and observations. We find that the quality of the generated unit tests is not sensitive to changes in minor details in the prompts provided. However, we observe that Code Interpreter is often able to effectively identify and correct mistakes in code that it writes, suggesting that providing it runnable code to check the correctness of its outputs would be beneficial, even though we find that it is already often able to generate correctly-formatted unit tests. Our findings suggest that, when prompting models similar to Code Interpreter, it is important to include the basic information necessary to generate unit tests, but minor details are not as important.

We introduce DoGBENCH (Documentation Generation Benchmark), to our knowledge, the first benchmark for generating and maintaining real user-facing software documentation. It asks whether an agent can produce documentation that experienced technical writers would accept in review. The benchmark contains 292 items from open source projects, including Helm, PostHog, and Mautic. Each item gives the agent a pre-change repository and a trigger, such as a code pull request or a reported documentation gap. The agent must first decide whether the documentation needs an update. For items that need one, the agent must produce an acceptable patch in one attempt. For items that do not need updates, the agent must abstain. Task-specific rubrics, validated with project maintainers, score each patch on accuracy, completeness, reader guidance, placement, and repository conventions. The composite score combines patch quality with correct abstention, and a score of 100 means an agent meets every requirement for the task. Scores should not be interpreted as a percentage of an expert's capability. We evaluated seven agents. The highest-scoring agent reached 47.3 out of 100 on the 117-item held-out split. In a separate audit of 1,267 patches, the most common failure modes were task-completion gaps (45.5%), technical inaccuracies (36.6%), and incomplete conceptual or reference coverage (32.5%). Analysis of the corresponding trajectories identified three key patterns associated with these failures: (1) describing interfaces without examining how readers use them (36.0%), (2) missing decisive evidence and filling the gaps with plausible assumptions (33.1%), and (3) stopping after finding the first plausible documentation surface and leaving other affected pages stale (30.1%).

Single-prompt accuracy is the dominant way to benchmark language models, but it can miss reliability failures that matter. We evaluate a 15-model open-weight corpus, with the main reliability analyses focused on 10 instruct models across five classification and reasoning benchmarks under five prompt variants each, measuring accuracy, token-probability calibration, verbal-confidence calibration, verbal parse rate, and prompt-perturbation spread for every (model x dataset x variant) cell. We find three broad results. First, evaluation design can materially change the conclusion. Switching Expected Calibration Error (ECE) token from a raw to a label-set-normalised definition changes per-cell calibration by a mean absolute 0.149. More strikingly, pairing a chain-of-thought prompt with a first-character evaluator on ARC-Challenge reduces apparent accuracy by 72-88% across all five primary models; two independent repair procedures recover 93.8% and 102.7% of the lost performance, indicating an evaluator-side rather than model-side failure. Second, confidence signals are fragile. On MMLU-Pro, every primary model verbally reports confidence substantially above both its accuracy and its token-probability confidence on the same rows, and verbal parse rate can collapse for a single model on a single prompt variant. Third, prompt robustness does not track parameter count reliably. Across 10 instruct models, the correlation between model size and prompt-perturbation spread ranges from -0.244 to 0.474 across benchmarks. Taken together, these results show that reliability conclusions for small language models depend not only on the model being evaluated, but also on the evaluation pipeline used to measure it. We argue that calibration definitions, evaluator logic, verbal parseability, and prompt robustness should be reported explicitly when making reliability claims.

Background: Agent skills are increasingly deployed as modular, reusable capability units in AI agent systems. Medical research agent skills require safeguards beyond general-purpose evaluation, including scientific integrity, methodological validity, reproducibility, and boundary safety. This study developed and preliminarily evaluated a domain-specific audit framework for medical research agent skills, with a focus on reliability against expert review. Methods: We developed MedSkillAudit (skill-auditor@1.0), a layered framework assessing skill release readiness before deployment. We evaluated 75 skills across five medical research categories (15 per category). Two experts independently assigned a quality score (0-100), an ordinal release disposition (Production Ready / Limited Release / Beta Only / Reject), and a high-risk failure flag. System-expert agreement was quantified using ICC(2,1) and linearly weighted Cohen's kappa, benchmarked against the human inter-rater baseline. Results: The mean consensus quality score was 72.4 (SD = 13.0); 57.3% of skills fell below the Limited Release threshold. MedSkillAudit achieved ICC(2,1) = 0.449 (95% CI: 0.250-0.610), exceeding the human inter-rater ICC of 0.300. System-consensus score divergence (SD = 9.5) was smaller than inter-expert divergence (SD = 12.4), with no directional bias (Wilcoxon p = 0.613). Protocol Design showed the strongest category-level agreement (ICC = 0.551); Academic Writing showed a negative ICC (-0.567), reflecting a structural rubric-expert mismatch. Conclusions: Domain-specific pre-deployment audit may provide a practical foundation for governing medical research agent skills, complementing general-purpose quality checks with structured audit workflows tailored to scientific use cases.

Test-Driven Development (TDD) is a widely adopted software engineering practice that requires developers to create and execute tests alongside code implementation, ensuring that software behavior is continuously validated and refined. In the era of vibe coding, where developers increasingly delegate code writing to large language models (LLMs) by specifying high-level intentions, TDD becomes even more crucial, as test cases serve as executable specifications that explicitly define and verify intended functionality beyond what natural-language descriptions and code context can convey. While vibe coding under TDD is promising, there are three main challenges: (1) selecting a small yet effective test suite to improve the generation accuracy and control the execution workload, (2) retrieving context such as relevant code effectively, and (3) systematically using test feedback for effective code refinement. To address these challenges, we introduce TENET, an LLM agent for generating functions in complex real-world repositories under the TDD setting. TENET features three components: (1) a novel test harness mechanism that selects a concise test suite to maximize diversity of target usage scenarios; (2) a tailored agent toolset that performs efficient retrieval of relevant code with interactive debugging; and (3) a reflection-based refinement workflow that iteratively analyzes failures, replenishes context, and applies code refinement. TENET achieves 69.08% and 81.77% Pass@1 on RepoCod and RepoEval benchmarks, outperforming the best agentic baselines by 9.49 and 2.17 percentage points, respectively. In addition, this is the first study of test-driven code generation with repository-level context, examining how different aspects of test suites affect the performance of LLM agents under the TDD setting.

Many deployments must compare candidate language models for safety before a labeled benchmark exists for the relevant language, sector, or regulatory regime. We formalize this setting as benchmarkless comparative safety scoring and specify the contract under which a scenario-based audit can be interpreted as deployment evidence. Scores are valid only under a fixed scenario pack, rubric, auditor, judge, sampling configuration, and rerun budget. Because no labels are available, we replace ground-truth agreement with an instrumental-validity chain: responsiveness to a controlled safe-versus-abliterated contrast, dominance of target-driven variance over auditor and judge artifacts, and stability across reruns. We instantiate the chain in SimpleAudit, a local-first scoring instrument, and validate it on a Norwegian safety pack. Safe and abliterated targets separate with AUROC values between 0.89 and 1.00, target identity is the dominant variance component (η^2 approx 0.52), and severity profiles stabilize by ten reruns. Applying the same chain to Petri shows that it admits both tools. The substantial differences arise upstream of the chain, in claim-contract enforcement and deployment fit. A Norwegian public-sector procurement case comparing Borealis and Gemma 3 demonstrates the resulting evidence in practice: the safer model depends on scenario category and risk measure. Consequently, scores, matched deltas, critical rates, uncertainty, and the auditor and judge used must be reported together rather than collapsed into a single ranking.

Existing benchmarks measure capability -- whether a model succeeds on a single attempt -- but production deployments require reliability -- consistent success across repeated attempts on tasks of varying duration. We show these properties diverge systematically as task duration grows, and that pass@1 on short tasks is structurally blind to this divergence. We introduce a reliability science framework for long-horizon LLM agents with four metrics: Reliability Decay Curve (RDC), Variance Amplification Factor (VAF), Graceful Degradation Score (GDS), and Meltdown Onset Point (MOP). We evaluate 10 models across 23,392 episodes on a 396-task benchmark spanning four duration buckets and three domains. Key findings: (1) reliability decay is domain-stratified -- SE GDS drops from 0.90 to 0.44 while document processing is nearly flat (0.74 to 0.71); (2) VAF bifurcates by capability tier -- high VAF is a capability signature, not an instability signal; (3) capability and reliability rankings diverge substantially, with multi-rank inversions at long horizons; (4) frontier models have the highest meltdown rates (up to 19%) because they attempt ambitious multi-step strategies that sometimes spiral; and (5) memory scaffolds universally hurt long-horizon performance across all 10 models. These results motivate reliability as a first-class evaluation dimension alongside capability.

Recent development of large language models (LLMs) for code like CodeX and CodeT5+ demonstrates tremendous promise in achieving code intelligence. Their ability of synthesizing code that completes a program for performing a pre-defined task has been intensively tested and verified on benchmark datasets including HumanEval and MBPP. Yet, evaluation of these LLMs from more perspectives (than just program synthesis) is also anticipated, considering their broad scope of applications in software engineering. In this paper, we explore the ability of LLMs for testing programs/code. By performing thorough analyses of recent LLMs for code in program testing, we show a series of intriguing properties of these models and demonstrate how program testing ability of LLMs can be improved. Following recent work which utilizes generated test cases to enhance program synthesis, we further leverage our findings in improving the quality of the synthesized programs and show +11.77% and +4.22% higher code pass rates on HumanEval+ comparing with the GPT-3.5-turbo baseline and the recent state-of-the-art, respectively.

Large language models are increasingly deployed as agents that solve tasks by interacting with external tool environments. Although recent tool-use benchmarks increasingly cover complex task settings, they still largely assume clean, stable, and trustworthy tool environments, leaving tool-environment unreliability insufficiently examined. We introduce ToolBench-X, a benchmark for evaluating agents under recoverable reliability hazards. ToolBench-X contains executable multi-step tasks across diverse domains and sequential, parallel, and mixed workflows, each paired with deterministic tools and a canonical final answer for automatic evaluation. Starting from clean tool environments, ToolBench-X injects five structured hazard types: Specification Drift, Invocation Error, Execution Failure, Output Drift, and Cross-source Conflict. Crucially, each injected instance remains solvable through at least one valid recovery path, such as retrying, fallback, verification, or cross-checking. Experiments reveal a substantial reliability gap: agents that perform well with reliable tools often fail under recoverable hazards. Further analysis shows that failures are driven less by tool-use volume or inference budget than by limited hazard diagnosis and ineffective recovery. Targeted recovery hints recover many failed tasks, while test-time scaling yields more limited gains. These results suggest that tool-use evaluation should move beyond function-call accuracy toward task completion under unreliable tool environments. The code and data is available at https://github.com/Foreverskyou/ToolBench-X.

Reliable evaluation is essential for developing and deploying large language models, yet in practice it often requires substantial manual effort: practitioners must identify appropriate benchmarks, reproduce heterogeneous evaluation codebases, configure dataset schema mappings, and interpret aggregated metrics. To address these challenges, we present One-Eval, an agentic evaluation system that converts natural-language evaluation requests into executable, traceable, and customizable evaluation workflows. One-Eval integrates (i) NL2Bench for intent structuring and personalized benchmark planning, (ii) BenchResolve for benchmark resolution, automatic dataset acquisition, and schema normalization to ensure executability, and (iii) Metrics \& Reporting for task-aware metric selection and decision-oriented reporting beyond scalar scores. The system further incorporates human-in-the-loop checkpoints for review, editing, and rollback, while preserving sample evidence trails for debugging and auditability. Experiments show that One-Eval can execute end-to-end evaluations from diverse natural-language requests with minimal user effort, supporting more efficient and reproducible evaluation in industrial settings. Our framework is publicly available at https://github.com/OpenDCAI/One-Eval.

Agent Skills package procedural instructions and checks for use by general-purpose agents, but loading a skill does not guarantee that every requirement remains active throughout a long tool-using trajectory. We study this problem in a production-derived, white-box code-audit workflow. Holding the task and 24 artifact checks fixed, we vary the surrounding context and classify where failures first become visible: lost requirements, editing drift, failed checking, or non-agent evaluator/runtime failures. Codex with gpt-5.4-mini passes 8/10 runs in a 10,991-character clean context but only 3/10 in both a 299,140-character relevant context and an equal-length irrelevant context. This 50-percentage-point difference is large but remains trend-level under two-sided Fisher tests (p = 0.0698). Requirement coverage nevertheless stays above 92% in both long conditions, showing that a few omissions can invalidate an otherwise complete artifact. A second task passes all clean and long runs, so the evidence does not support a universal context-length threshold. A detailed external checklist passes 10/10 runs, compared with 5/10 for a generic self-check (p = 0.0325). Coding-agent scaffolds may help by selecting a smaller working set, but they do not eliminate failures. We do not introduce context rot or a new general monitoring method; we provide a bounded failure classification and empirical case study for white-box code auditing.

We propose claim-level falsification as a principle for test-time scaling and instantiate it through Claim-Level Reliability Assessment (CLR), a training-free framework that reallocates test-time compute from additional solution sampling to targeted verification. Since whole-trace evaluation often obscures decisive errors due to signal dilution from routine tokens, CLR condenses each reasoning trace into a compact set of decision-critical claims, thereby isolating its logical anchors. Furthermore, recognizing the inherent difficulty of generating entirely correct solutions under fixed model capabilities, CLR shifts the focus to semantic falsification. This approach exploits a fundamental asymmetry between solution construction and claim refutation. Constructing a valid solution requires a flawless reasoning path, whereas refuting an incorrect claim requires identifying only a single decisive flaw. This targeted search for negative evidence systematically compresses the survival space of high-confidence incorrect traces, effectively suppressing erroneous consensus via nonlinear reliability scoring. Across four LLMs and four reasoning benchmarks under matched budgets, CLR generally improves upon pass@1 and self-consistency. On GPT-OSS-20B/CMIMC25, for instance, CLR exceeds pass@1 by 27.15 percentage-points and raises self-consistency accuracy from 77.50\% to 82.19\% with 37.0\% fewer tokens.

Unit testing is essential in detecting bugs in functionally-discrete program units. Manually writing high-quality unit tests is time-consuming and laborious. Although traditional techniques can generate tests with reasonable coverage, they exhibit low readability and cannot be directly adopted by developers. Recent work has shown the large potential of large language models (LLMs) in unit test generation, which can generate more human-like and meaningful test code. ChatGPT, the latest LLM incorporating instruction tuning and reinforcement learning, has performed well in various domains. However, It remains unclear how effective ChatGPT is in unit test generation. In this work, we perform the first empirical study to evaluate ChatGPT's capability of unit test generation. Specifically, we conduct a quantitative analysis and a user study to systematically investigate the quality of its generated tests regarding the correctness, sufficiency, readability, and usability. The tests generated by ChatGPT still suffer from correctness issues, including diverse compilation errors and execution failures. Still, the passing tests generated by ChatGPT resemble manually-written tests by achieving comparable coverage, readability, and even sometimes developers' preference. Our findings indicate that generating unit tests with ChatGPT could be very promising if the correctness of its generated tests could be further improved. Inspired by our findings above, we propose ChatTESTER, a novel ChatGPT-based unit test generation approach, which leverages ChatGPT itself to improve the quality of its generated tests. ChatTESTER incorporates an initial test generator and an iterative test refiner. Our evaluation demonstrates the effectiveness of ChatTESTER by generating 34.3% more compilable tests and 18.7% more tests with correct assertions than the default ChatGPT.

Iterative repair loops have become a core design pattern in LLM-based software engineering systems. These workflows repeatedly generate, validate, and repair artifacts using feedback such as compiler errors or test failures. Despite their widespread use, the impact of repair-loop iteration limits remains poorly understood, as most prior work adopts fixed, often arbitrary, repair budgets. We study repair-loop effectiveness across multiple software engineering tasks, including code generation, test generation, and code translation. Across several representative workflows, datasets, and contemporary low-cost LLMs, we observe a consistent pattern of diminishing returns: the first three to four repair iterations account for most achievable gains, while later iterations contribute only marginal improvements. We further find that repair behavior is influenced more strongly by workflow orchestration and feedback design than by the underlying model itself. These results suggest that repair budgets should be treated as an explicit experimental variable, as they directly affect evaluation outcomes, computational cost, runtime, and reproducibility in LLM-based software engineering research.

Pre-trained large language models (LLMs) have recently emerged as a breakthrough technology in natural language processing and artificial intelligence, with the ability to handle large-scale datasets and exhibit remarkable performance across a wide range of tasks. Meanwhile, software testing is a crucial undertaking that serves as a cornerstone for ensuring the quality and reliability of software products. As the scope and complexity of software systems continue to grow, the need for more effective software testing techniques becomes increasingly urgent, and making it an area ripe for innovative approaches such as the use of LLMs. This paper provides a comprehensive review of the utilization of LLMs in software testing. It analyzes 52 relevant studies that have used LLMs for software testing, from both the software testing and LLMs perspectives. The paper presents a detailed discussion of the software testing tasks for which LLMs are commonly used, among which test case preparation and program repair are the most representative ones. It also analyzes the commonly used LLMs, the types of prompt engineering that are employed, as well as the accompanied techniques with these LLMs. It also summarizes the key challenges and potential opportunities in this direction. This work can serve as a roadmap for future research in this area, highlighting potential avenues for exploration, and identifying gaps in our current understanding of the use of LLMs in software testing.

SciCode is the standard measure of the scientific-coding ability of language models: research-level problems that demand both frontier scientific theory and its implementation as working numerical code. It is a component of the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index and a standing evaluation in government and national-laboratory suites. Yet its scores have recently plateaued: the strongest 2026 models cluster tightly around 60\% subproblem accuracy, and a successor model ties its predecessor. We trace this stagnation to defects in the benchmark itself. A per-problem, domain-expert audit of all 65 test problems uncovers 263 defects; 192 of them, spread across 91\% of the main problems, cause correct, instruction-following solutions to be wrongly rejected---through non-reproducible gold answers, over-tight tolerances, or self-contradictory specifications. Critically, 78\% of these score-suppressing defects require specialized physics or mathematics knowledge to detect, not mere clerical proofreading. We corrected every confirmable defect to produce SciCode-Verified. The corrections add only the specifications a well-posed problem requires, repair grading, and tighten the tests that were too lenient; every change is recorded with its justification and independently re-checked by a second domain expert. We re-evaluate twelve frontier model snapshots on the corrected benchmark and find a substantial recovery: subproblem accuracy rises from 45--60\% to 84--98\%, and main-problem accuracy from 9--27\% to 69--92\%. State-of-the-art models are far more proficient in scientific coding than SciCode has suggested---the bottleneck was not model capability, but the quality of the evaluation instrument. We release SciCode-Verified with its complete audit trail as the corrected public standard.

Context: Code reviews are crucial for software quality. Recent AI advances have allowed large language models (LLMs) to review and fix code; now, there are tools that perform these reviews. However, their reliability and accuracy have not yet been systematically evaluated. Objective: This study compares different LLMs' performance in detecting code correctness and suggesting improvements. Method: We tested GPT4o and Gemini 2.0 Flash on 492 AI generated code blocks of varying correctness, along with 164 canonical code blocks from the HumanEval benchmark. To simulate the code review task objectively, we expected LLMs to assess code correctness and improve the code if needed. We ran experiments with different configurations and reported on the results. Results: With problem descriptions, GPT4o and Gemini 2.0 Flash correctly classified code correctness 68.50% and 63.89% of the time, respectively, and corrected the code 67.83% and 54.26% of the time for the 492 code blocks of varying correctness. Without problem descriptions, performance declined. The results for the 164 canonical code blocks differed, suggesting that performance depends on the type of code. Conclusion: LLM code reviews can help suggest improvements and assess correctness, but there is a risk of faulty outputs. We propose a process that involves humans, called the "Human in the loop LLM Code Review" to promote knowledge sharing while mitigating the risk of faulty outputs.

Test-time scaling for large language models (LLMs) can involve generating multiple candidate solutions for selection or revising an earlier attempt. To guide selection and revision, we need a verifier that can estimate candidate correctness and provide evidence of failure. In competitive programming, however, official judging systems provide authoritative verdicts under finite submission budgets, without revealing failure explanations or failing inputs. To provide informative feedback without consuming official submissions, we formulate a task in which a model judges and diagnoses a candidate program using only the problem statement and source code, with generated counterexamples serving as checkable evidence. To evaluate this task, we build USACO-JUDGE from the USACO 2026 contests, using accepted and unaccepted programs written by human experts and multiple LLMs. We then train ARBITER, a 35B mixture-of-experts (MoE) agentic verifier, with reinforcement learning in a generic execution sandbox. Training raises counterexample success on incorrect programs from 40.61% to 62.67% and mean binary verdict accuracy on USACO-JUDGE from 71.41% to 87.41%, approaching frontier verification performance. Beyond verification, ARBITER outperforms baselines in both code selection and refinement. In an IOI 2026 case study, ARBITER-guided refinement raises GPT-OSS-120B's expected score above the gold-medal threshold under the official submission limit.

Large Language Models (LLMs) and other automated techniques have been increasingly used to support software developers by generating software artifacts such as code snippets, patches, and comments. However, accurately assessing the correctness of these generated artifacts remains a significant challenge. On one hand, human evaluation provides high accuracy but is labor-intensive and lacks scalability. On the other hand, many automatic evaluation metrics are scalable and require minimal human effort, but they often fail to accurately reflect the actual correctness of generated software artifacts. In this paper, we present SE-Jury, the first evaluation metric for LLM-as-Ensemble-Judge specifically designed to accurately assess the correctness of generated software artifacts. SE-Jury first defines five distinct evaluation strategies, each implemented by an independent judge. A dynamic team selection mechanism then identifies the most appropriate subset of judges as a team to produce a final correctness score through ensembling. We evaluate SE-Jury across a diverse set of software engineering (SE) benchmarks that span three popular SE tasks: code generation, automated program repair, and code summarization. Results demonstrate that SE-Jury consistently achieves a higher correlation with human judgments, with improvements ranging from 29.6% to 140.8% over existing automatic metrics. SE-Jury reaches agreement levels with human annotators that are close to inter-annotator agreement in code generation and program repair. These findings underscore SE-Jury's potential as a scalable and reliable alternative to human evaluation in these SE tasks.

Increasing test-time computation is a straightforward approach to enhancing the quality of responses in Large Language Models (LLMs). While Best-of-N sampling and Self-Consistency with majority voting are simple and effective, they require a fixed number of sampling responses for each query, regardless of its complexity. This could result in wasted computation for simpler questions and insufficient exploration for more challenging ones. In this work, we argue that model confidence of responses can be used for improving the efficiency of test-time scaling. Unfortunately, LLMs are known to be overconfident and provide unreliable confidence estimation. To address this limitation, we introduce Self-Calibration by distilling Self-Consistency-derived confidence into the model itself. This enables reliable confidence estimation at test time with one forward pass. We then design confidence-based efficient test-time scaling methods to handle queries of various difficulty, such as Early-Stopping for Best-of-N and Self-Consistency with calibrated confidence. Experiments on three LLMs across six datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach. Specifically, applying confidence-based Early Stopping to Best-of-N improves MathQA accuracy from 81.0 to 83.6 with a sample budget of 16 responses, indicating the efficacy of confidence-based sampling strategy at inference time.

This study presents a quantitative evaluation of the code quality and security of five prominent Large Language Models (LLMs): Claude Sonnet 4, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, GPT-4o, Llama 3.2 90B, and OpenCoder 8B. While prior research has assessed the functional performance of LLM-generated code, this research tested LLM output from 4,442 Java coding assignments through comprehensive static analysis using SonarQube. The findings suggest that although LLMs can generate functional code, they also introduce a range of software defects, including bugs, security vulnerabilities, and code smells. These defects do not appear to be isolated; rather, they may represent shared weaknesses stemming from systemic limitations within current LLM code generation methods. In particular, critically severe issues, such as hard-coded passwords and path traversal vulnerabilities, were observed across multiple models. These results indicate that LLM-generated code requires verification in order to be considered production-ready. This study found no direct correlation between a model's functional performance (measured by Pass@1 rate of unit tests) and the overall quality and security of its generated code, measured by the number of SonarQube issues in benchmark solutions that passed the functional tests. This suggests that functional benchmark performance score is not a good indicator of overall code quality and security. The goal of this study is not to rank LLM performance but to highlight that all evaluated models appear to share certain weaknesses. Consequently, these findings support the view that static analysis can be a valuable instrument for detecting latent defects and an important safeguard for organizations that deploy AI in software development.

Verifiers play a crucial role in large language model (LLM) reasoning, needed by post-training techniques such as reinforcement learning. However, reliable verifiers are hard to get for difficult coding problems, because a well-disguised wrong solution may only be detected by carefully human-written edge cases that are difficult to synthesize. To address this issue, we propose HARDTESTGEN, a pipeline for high-quality test synthesis using LLMs. With this pipeline, we curate a comprehensive competitive programming dataset HARDTESTS with 47k problems and synthetic high-quality tests. Compared with existing tests, HARDTESTGEN tests demonstrate precision that is 11.3 percentage points higher and recall that is 17.5 percentage points higher when evaluating LLM-generated code. For harder problems, the improvement in precision can be as large as 40 points. HARDTESTS also proves to be more effective for model training, measured by downstream code generation performance. We will open-source our dataset and synthesis pipeline at https://leililab.github.io/HardTests/.

In passage reranking, response ranking and multi-document question answering, LLMs can score several candidate documents or responses together in one prompt, each still receiving its own score. Such scorers are selected on ranking quality, but their scores determine a decision: what a score threshold retains, a reader answers, or which chosen/rejected pair enters preference training. Because the candidates share that prompt, reordering them changes their scores. The same query over the same candidates should still yield the same decision. However, equal ranking quality does not imply equal decisions: on passage reranking, five trained scorers within 0.010 nDCG@10 retain sets that overlap by only 0.66-0.84 when reordered. No prompt-time change we test resolves that dependence: the only one that improves ranking quality does not measurably improve decision stability. We introduce order-consistency SFT (OC-SFT), which attenuates it in the weights by penalizing disagreement between a candidate's scores across orderings. It holds ranking quality and leads every decision-stability measure among trained scorers on all three tasks. It is also more stable on 12 base models than order-averaged distillation, which trains on labels averaged across permutations. One OC-SFT permutation retains sets that overlap more than ten averaged off-the-shelf permutations. A comparison of such scorers should therefore report what a threshold retains and a reader answers, not ranking quality alone. Code is available at https://github.com/thomsonreuters/presentation-dependence.

Test case generation is an important activity, yet a time-consuming and laborious task. Recently, AthenaTest -- a deep learning approach for generating unit test cases -- is proposed. However, AthenaTest can generate less than one-fifth of the test cases correctly, due to a lack of assertion knowledge and test signature verification. In this paper, we propose A3Test, a DL-based test case generation approach that is augmented by assertion knowledge with a mechanism to verify naming consistency and test signatures. A3Test leverages the domain adaptation principles where the goal is to adapt the existing knowledge from an assertion generation task to the test case generation task. We also introduce a verification approach to verify naming consistency and test signatures. Through an evaluation of 5,278 focal methods from the Defects4j dataset, we find that our A3Test (1) achieves 147% more correct test cases and 15% more method coverage, with a lower number of generated test cases than AthenaTest; (2) still outperforms the existing pre-trained models for the test case generation task; (3) contributes substantially to performance improvement via our own proposed assertion pre-training and the verification components; (4) is 97.2% much faster while being more accurate than AthenaTest.

For deploying foundation models, practitioners increasingly need prescriptive scaling laws: given a pre training compute budget, what downstream accuracy is attainable with contemporary post training practice, and how stable is that mapping as the field evolves? Using large scale observational evaluations with 5k observational and 2k newly sampled data on model performance, we estimate capability boundaries, high conditional quantiles of benchmark scores as a function of log pre training FLOPs, via smoothed quantile regression with a monotone, saturating sigmoid parameterization. We validate the temporal reliability by fitting on earlier model generations and evaluating on later releases. Across various tasks, the estimated boundaries are mostly stable, with the exception of math reasoning that exhibits a consistently advancing boundary over time. We then extend our approach to analyze task dependent saturation and to probe contamination related shifts on math reasoning tasks. Finally, we introduce an efficient algorithm that recovers near full data frontiers using roughly 20% of evaluation budget. Together, our work releases the Proteus 2k, the latest model performance evaluation dataset, and introduces a practical methodology for translating compute budgets into reliable performance expectations and for monitoring when capability boundaries shift across time.

Benchmarks are essential for consistent evaluation and reproducibility. The integration of Artificial Intelligence into Software Engineering (AI4SE) has given rise to numerous benchmarks for tasks such as code generation and bug fixing. However, this surge presents challenges: (1) scattered benchmark knowledge across tasks, (2) difficulty in selecting relevant benchmarks, (3) the absence of a uniform standard for benchmark development, and (4) limitations of existing benchmarks. In this paper, we review 173 studies and identify 204 AI4SE benchmarks. We classify these benchmarks, analyze their limitations, and expose gaps in practices. Based on our review, we created BenchScout, a semantic search tool to find relevant benchmarks, using automated clustering of the contexts from associated studies. We conducted a user study with 22 participants to evaluate BenchScout's usability, effectiveness, and intuitiveness which resulted in average scores of 4.5, 4.0, and 4.1 out of 5. To advance benchmarking standards, we propose BenchFrame, a unified method to enhance benchmark quality. As a case study, we applied BenchFrame to the HumanEval benchmark and addressed its main limitations. This led to HumanEvalNext, featuring (1) corrected errors, (2) improved language conversion, (3) expanded test coverage, and (4) increased difficulty. We then evaluated ten state-of-the-art code language models on HumanEval, HumanEvalPlus, and HumanEvalNext. On HumanEvalNext, models showed a pass@1 score reduction of 31.22% and 19.94% compared to HumanEval and HumanEvalPlus, respectively.

Software testing is a crucial phase in the software life cycle, helping identify potential risks and reduce maintenance costs. With the advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs), researchers have proposed an increasing number of LLM-based software testing techniques, particularly in the area of test case generation. Despite the growing interest, limited efforts have been made to thoroughly evaluate the actual capabilities of LLMs in this task. In this paper, we introduce TestBench, a benchmark for class-level LLM-based test case generation. We construct a dataset of 108 Java programs from 9 real-world, large-scale projects on GitHub, each representing a different thematic domain. We then design three distinct types of prompts based on context descriptions, including self-contained context, full context, and simple context. Besides, we propose a fine-grained evaluation framework that considers five aspects of test cases: syntactic correctness, compilation correctness, test correctness, code coverage rate, and defect detection rate. Furthermore, we propose a heuristic algorithm to repair erroneous test cases generated by LLMs. We evaluate CodeLlama-13b, GPT-3.5, and GPT-4 on the TestBench, and our experimental results indicate that larger models demonstrate a greater ability to effectively utilize contextual information, thus generating higher-quality test cases. Smaller models may struggle with the noise introduced by the extensive information contained within the full context. However, when using the simplified version, namely the simple context, which is derived from the full context via abstract syntax tree analysis, the performance of these models improves significantly. Our analysis highlights the current progress and pinpoints future directions to further enhance the effectiveness of models by handling contextual information for test case generation.

We introduce Tencent WorkBuddy Bench, a multi-domain evaluation suite for coding agents; this report documents its construction methodology, scoring protocol, and a cross-model leaderboard. At its core is a unified evaluation framework for constructing and running distribution-informed coding-agent tasks across four work domains - Code, Web, Office, and Security. Rather than adapting public issue text, every task is reverse-engineered from a real commit, pull request, or business scenario and rewritten as a short, colloquial, role-played request, so that a task's prompt is not recoverable by web-searching the underlying issue, pull request, or commit thread. Because the dataset is released openly - task directories, environment images, evaluation harness, tests, and reference solutions - contamination resistance rests on this construction together with dataset versioning rather than on secrecy. The four subsets - repository-level engineering, front-end development, office and business workflows, and red-/blue-team security - probe complementary facets of real work, each with its own verification style. All are packaged in a uniform task-directory format and run, under a uniform and reproducible protocol, on two agent harnesses (CodeBuddy Code and Claude Code); the full open release makes the benchmark reproducible end to end and directly auditable, since any third party can re-run each task and inspect its content. Because each subset uses a different scoring instrument, scores are not comparable across subsets and the suite reports no suite-wide average. We report a cross-model leaderboard across several model families.

Recent advances in automated test generation utilises language models to produce unit tests. While effective, language models tend to generate many incorrect tests with respect to both syntax and semantics. Although such incorrect tests can be easily detected and discarded, they constitute a "missed opportunity" -- if fixed, they are often valuable as they directly add testing value (they effectively target the underlying program logic to be tested) and indirectly form good seeds for generating additional tests. To this end, we propose a simple technique for repairing some of these incorrect tests through a combination of rule-based static analysis and re-prompting. We evaluate this simple approach, named YATE, on a set of 6 open-source projects and show that it can effectively produce tests that cover on average 32.06% more lines and kill 21.77% more mutants than a plain LLM-based method. We also compare YATE with four other LLM-based methods, namely HITS, SYMPROMPT, TESTSPARK and COVERUP and show that it produces tests that cover substantially more code. YATE achieves 22% higher line coverage, 20% higher branch coverage and kill 20% more mutants at a comparable cost (number of calls to LLMs).

Coding agents often finish a session by returning one squashed patch that mixes feature implementation, bug fixes, refactorings, tests, and configuration edits. While the final code may be correct, collapsing unrelated edits into one patch removes the history structure needed for review, selective revert, and later maintenance. We study retrospective commit-history reconstruction: given a completed squashed change, an agent groups its hunks into commits and materializes a replayable commit sequence. We formalize the task as hunk-to-commit partitioning with a replay requirement and build AtomicCommitBench, containing 800 real consecutive-commit episodes from 10 Python projects. Because multiple decompositions may be reasonable, we evaluate outputs using complementary metrics: PPAR for replay validity, ARI for reference-based grouping quality, and TCR for failure containment on scoreable modified-test episodes. Natural retrospective reconstruction proves substantially harder than replay checking or synthetic tangling. Although nearly all non-random methods achieve replay validity (PPAR >= 0.988), grouping quality ranges from 0.03 to 0.46 ARI. Matched synthetic composites are much easier than real same-author squashed diffs (+0.333 ARI). In our evaluation, the GPT-5.4 setup driven by Codex CLI (0.46 ARI) and the GLM-5 setup driven by Claude Code (0.43 ARI) outperform MiniMax (0.31) and Kimi (0.29). Qualitative analysis identifies same-file lumping and support-hunk drift as recurring failure modes. Dependency-Aware Commit Evidence (DACE) improves the lower-scoring setups by 0.05 to 0.08 ARI, indicating that dependency cues and hunk-role information help agents avoid locality-driven grouping errors. AtomicCommitBench enables evaluation of the commit histories produced by coding agents alongside the final code.

Program synthesis has been long studied with recent approaches focused on directly using the power of Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate code. Programming benchmarks, with curated synthesis problems and test-cases, are used to measure the performance of various LLMs on code synthesis. However, these test-cases can be limited in both quantity and quality for fully assessing the functional correctness of the generated code. Such limitation in the existing benchmarks begs the following question: In the era of LLMs, is the code generated really correct? To answer this, we propose EvalPlus -- a code synthesis evaluation framework to rigorously benchmark the functional correctness of LLM-synthesized code. EvalPlus augments a given evaluation dataset with large amounts of test-cases newly produced by an automatic test input generator, powered by both LLM- and mutation-based strategies. While EvalPlus is general, we extend the test-cases of the popular HumanEval benchmark by 80x to build HumanEval+. Our extensive evaluation across 26 popular LLMs (e.g., GPT-4 and ChatGPT) demonstrates that HumanEval+ is able to catch significant amounts of previously undetected wrong code synthesized by LLMs, reducing the pass@k by up-to 19.3-28.9%. We also surprisingly found that test insufficiency can lead to mis-ranking. For example, both WizardCoder-CodeLlama and Phind-CodeLlama now outperform ChatGPT on HumanEval+, while none of them could on HumanEval. Our work not only indicates that prior popular code synthesis evaluation results do not accurately reflect the true performance of LLMs for code synthesis, but also opens up a new direction to improve such programming benchmarks through automated testing. We have open-sourced our tools, enhanced datasets as well as all LLM-generated code at https://github.com/evalplus/evalplus to facilitate and accelerate future LLM-for-code research.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly advanced automated test generation, yet existing methods often rely on ground-truth code for verification, risking bug propagation and limiting applicability in test-driven development. We present ConVerTest, a novel two-stage pipeline for synthesizing reliable tests without requiring prior code implementations. ConVerTest integrates three core strategies: (i) Self-Consistency(SC) to generate convergent test cases via majority voting; (ii) Chain-of-Verification (CoVe) for iterative, reasoning-guided code refinement; and (iii) a Dual Execution Agreement to crossvalidate code and tests through consensus. Experiments on BIGCODEBENCH and LESS BASIC PYTHON PROBLEMS (LBPP) benchmarks demonstrate that ConVerTest improves test validity, line coverage, and mutation scores by up to 39%, 28%, and 18% respectively over baselines. Our findings highlight ConVerTest as a robust solution for mitigating hallucinations and enhancing the reliability of autonomous software testing agents.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly decide whether software behaves correctly, either by writing a test oracle or by acting as one. Yet two oracles can look identical and rest on different ground: one assertion encodes a written specification, another only what the model learned in training. Prior secondary studies sort oracles by form or by technique, rarely by the property that governs how far a verdict can be trusted: where its authority comes from. This systematic literature review, reported under the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines, screens 2,436 records to 54 included studies, extended by citation searching (snowballing) to 83 in total. We read the corpus along three axes: the source of an oracle's authority, the form it takes, and the mechanism that adjudicates it. Just over half of the corpus reaches a verdict with no specification at all. That is what lets these oracles work on code with no specification to consult, and what leaves a challenged verdict with less to fall back on. Source and mechanism cross-cut rather than coincide, so a label such as LLM-as-a-judge names how a verdict is produced, not why it should be trusted. Oracle quality is most often judged by resemblance to a known oracle rather than by whether injected faults are caught. The first question to ask of any LLM oracle is therefore what one would point to in defending its verdict. The protocol, search query, and per-study coding sheet are released.

We introduce TestCase-Eval, a new benchmark for systematic evaluation of LLMs in test-case generation. TestCase-Eval includes 500 algorithm problems and 100,000 human-crafted solutions from the Codeforces platform. It focuses on two pivotal tasks: (1) Fault Coverage, which measures how well LLM-generated test sets probe diverse input scenarios and cover a wide range of potential failure modes. (2) Fault Exposure, which evaluates whether LLMs can craft a tailored test input that reveals a specific incorrect code implementation. We provide a comprehensive assessment of 19 state-of-the-art open-source and proprietary LLMs on TestCase-Eval, offering insights into their strengths and limitations in generating effective test cases for algorithm problems.

APR (Automated Program Repair) aims to automatically locate program defects, generate patches and validate the repairs. Existing techniques for APR are often combined with LLMs (Large Language Models), which leverages the code-related knowledge of LLMs to improve repair effectiveness. Current LLM-based APR methods typically utilize test cases only during the inference stage, adopting an iterative approach that performs repair first and validates it through test execution afterward. This conventional paradigm neglects two important aspects: the potential contribution of test cases in the training phase, and the possibility of leveraging testing prior to repair. To address this, we propose Repair-R1, which introduces test cases into the model's training phase and shifts test generation to precede repair. The model is required to first generate discriminative test cases that can distinguish defective behaviors, and then perform repair based on these tests. This enables the model to better locate defects and understand the underlying causes of defects, thereby improving repair effectiveness. We implement Repair-R1 with three different backbone models, using RL (reinforcement learning) to co-optimize test generation and bug repair. Experimental results on four widely adopted benchmarks demonstrate the superiority of Repair-R1. Specially, compared to vanilla models, Repair-R1 improves repair success rate by 2.68\% to 48.29\%, test generation success rate by 16.38\% to 53.28\%, and test coverage by 0.78\% to 53.96\%. We publish the code and weights at https://github.com/Tomsawyerhu/APR-RL and https://huggingface.co/tomhu/Qwen3-4B-RL-5000-step.

Executable Agent Skills combine natural-language instructions and scripts into reusable packages for LLM agents, and revising them requires fixing errors without breaking correct behavior. Existing benchmarks do not systematically distinguish documentation repair, script repair, and preservation when evaluating skill self-evolution. We introduce SkillScriptBench, a 350-task benchmark designed to evaluate these capabilities separately. From a survey of over 35,000 GitHub-hosted Skill roots, we select 100 packages and construct 150 repair tasks. Each task pairs a package containing injected script faults with a maintenance request and executable checks of the required behavior. A complementary controlled track contains 200 tasks from 50 packages, each evaluated under the same maintenance request in four states: clean, documentation faults, script faults, and faults in both. Across four LLMs, methods that edit both documentation and scripts can repair script faults but do not consistently outperform Markdown-only revision on documentation repair or preservation. We therefore introduce AST-Guided Skill Revision, which uses abstract syntax trees and calling relationships to link maintenance requirements to relevant code locations. It restricts script edits to these locations and updates the documentation to match the revised scripts. Averaged across models, this revision stage yields absolute gains in repair success of 21.9% for Raw Package and 27.7% for CoEvoSkills on faulty packages. Absolute gains in the proportion of tasks solved in all three runs reach 20.8% and 31.5%, respectively, indicating more consistent repair success across repeated runs.

Scientific coding agents receive equations, boundary conditions, and output requirements in writing, then must assess the programs they revise. Rules to Tools (R2T) supplies prepared executable checks of public scientific requirements. Matched SciCode repair groups share written checks, starting programs, model, and budgets; the tool group receives a callable implementation. Across two task-ID cohorts, complete repair is 26/30 with text and 29/30 with the prepared checks. Three task IDs favor tools, one favors text, and eleven tie. The eight-ID cohort scores 13/16 versus 15/16, with a task-cluster bootstrap 95% interval of [-12.5, 43.75] percentage points for the difference. The larger shared-definition SciCode cohort ties at 13/24 per group. Five development-exposed tasks with alternate starting programs score 3/10 versus 7/10. The tool group favors tasks 17, 77, and 11; initial checks flag task 17 and report no violation for tasks 77 and 11. Task 37 favors text and has no initial reported violation. A fresh source-through-Python arm also reaches 15/16, matching the dedicated command's aggregate. In a matched PDE comparison, detailed text scores 23/24 and checks score 24/24, with 31.2% lower reported model output for checks. Agent-side output savings vary by cohort, while public CPU use rises in both task-ID cohorts. These results measure task-dependent repair outcomes and agent-side costs with prepared checks.

Large language models (LLMs) show impressive abilities via few-shot prompting. Commercialized APIs such as OpenAI GPT-3 further increase their use in real-world language applications. However, the crucial problem of how to improve the reliability of GPT-3 is still under-explored. While reliability is a broad and vaguely defined term, we decompose reliability into four main facets that correspond to the existing framework of ML safety and are well-recognized to be important: generalizability, social biases, calibration, and factuality. Our core contribution is to establish simple and effective prompts that improve GPT-3's reliability as it: 1) generalizes out-of-distribution, 2) balances demographic distribution and uses natural language instructions to reduce social biases, 3) calibrates output probabilities, and 4) updates the LLM's factual knowledge and reasoning chains. With appropriate prompts, GPT-3 is more reliable than smaller-scale supervised models on all these facets. We release all processed datasets, evaluation scripts, and model predictions. Our systematic empirical study not only sheds new insights on the reliability of prompting LLMs, but more importantly, our prompting strategies can help practitioners more reliably use LLMs like GPT-3.

The pass-all-test binary reward has become a standard recipe for training software engineering agents, but its sparsity eliminates difference of partially correct patches. The test pass-rate is a natural alternative. However, we find that it is not a reliable indicator of patch quality. A functionality being tested can be covered by either one challenging test or one hundred trivial tests, where the majority might be already satisfied pass-to-pass tests. We introduce CodeLift, a reinforcement learning method that dynamically calibrates pass-rate rewards, turning the test suite into an adaptive curriculum. At each iteration, CodeLift groups tests that kill the same patches and patches that pass the same tests, then gives more weight to test groups that fewer patch groups pass. This reduces the impact of majority simple tests and focuses more on what is still challenging. Within each rollout, CodeLift applies the same scoring rule to repository snapshots, assigning credit to useful actions even when later ones introduce regressions. Experiments on SWE benchmarks show that CodeLift consistently improves pass@1/2/4/8 over binary and pass-rate baselines. Analyses show that CodeLift provides dense, stable learning signals and unlocks the inherent curriculum in the test suite.

A/B tests are typically analyzed via frequentist p-values and confidence intervals; but these inferences are wholly unreliable if users endogenously choose samples sizes by *continuously monitoring* their tests. We define *always valid* p-values and confidence intervals that let users try to take advantage of data as fast as it becomes available, providing valid statistical inference whenever they make their decision. Always valid inference can be interpreted as a natural interface for a sequential hypothesis test, which empowers users to implement a modified test tailored to them. In particular, we show in an appropriate sense that the measures we develop tradeoff sample size and power efficiently, despite a lack of prior knowledge of the user's relative preference between these two goals. We also use always valid p-values to obtain multiple hypothesis testing control in the sequential context. Our methodology has been implemented in a large scale commercial A/B testing platform to analyze hundreds of thousands of experiments to date.

Tool-using AI agents are increasingly deployed across enterprise software systems, yet widely used benchmarks primarily evaluate nominal task completion, conflating baseline planning competence with operational fault recovery. We introduce UndoBench, a benchmark spanning 36 base workflows and 36 fault scenarios across 8 enterprise domains, decoupling task competence from recovery capability via counterfactual paired trials under identical seeds alongside wire-level effect-history and environment-state oracles. On 12 held-out TEST workflows across two open-weight models, two frameworks, and three recovery paradigms (5,760 executions / 2,880 paired trials) in the frozen lost-acknowledgment study, nominal competence reached 83.54% while conditional recovery success rate (CRSR) fell to 46.72%, with naive retry producing duplicate external effects in 53.33% of trials. Extensions to commercial API models reproduced this competence-recovery separation. Evaluations across complementary execution boundaries show that recovery is phase-dependent: before mutation, methods perform similarly without duplicate effects among capable trials; during partial mutation, naive retry, per-call idempotency, and zero-privilege journaling collapse on the evaluated composite workflows; after commit but before acknowledgment, verification and server-side idempotency substantially improve safety. These findings demonstrate that evaluating nominal completion alone masks critical, phase-dependent recovery vulnerabilities in autonomous agents.

Large language models increasingly write and repair production code, yet evidence is mounting that their test-passing patches leave codebases harder to maintain. We identify one concrete source: deletion avoidance, the systematic tendency to retain code that an intended edit requires removing. Across the five leading models on the official SWE-bench Verified leaderboard, deletion recall against the developer patch reaches at most 71.7% even on tasks all five solve, and models reach the right file for over 92% of required deletions but cut the exact line in under 52% of cases. Instead, 29.0% of passing patches wrap the targeted code in a guard or fallback, a pattern we call Guard-and-Go. Such patches pass because the original tests rarely check removal: when we retrofit 34 Verified tasks with tests that fail if the targeted code remains, four frontier models spanning closed and open weights fall from 63.2% to 41.9%. Because real repairs mix removal with addition, we curate CanItDelete, a benchmark of 200 tasks mined from real commits whose entire required edit is deletion. Even with the addition work gone, the best model still fails one task in five, and smaller open models fall to 18.0%. We then ablate GPT-5.6 Sol under four cumulative prompts; success moves little until we supply the exact lines, which nearly eliminate incomplete deletion yet raise success only to 80.5% because the model then deletes beyond the spans or adds code instead. Finally, through a pilot study we show one potential fix: teaching deletion during post-training reduces deletion avoidance and improves broader code-editing performance, suggesting the behavior is undertrained rather than beyond reach.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are gaining popularity among software engineers. A crucial aspect of developing effective code generation LLMs is to evaluate these models using a robust benchmark. Evaluation benchmarks with quality issues can provide a false sense of performance. In this work, we conduct the first-of-its-kind study of the quality of prompts within benchmarks used to compare the performance of different code generation models. To conduct this study, we analyzed 3,566 prompts from 9 code generation benchmarks to identify quality issues in them. We also investigated whether fixing the identified quality issues in the benchmarks' prompts affects a model's performance. We also studied memorization issues of the evaluation dataset, which can put into question a benchmark's trustworthiness. We found that code generation evaluation benchmarks mainly focused on Python and coding exercises and had very limited contextual dependencies to challenge the model. These datasets and the developers' prompts suffer from quality issues like spelling and grammatical errors, unclear sentences to express developers' intent, and not using proper documentation style. Fixing all these issues in the benchmarks can lead to a better performance for Python code generation, but not a significant improvement was observed for Java code generation. We also found evidence that GPT-3.5-Turbo and CodeGen-2.5 models may have data contamination issues.

We study reliability in autonomous language-model agents that translate user mandates into validated tool actions under real capital. The setting is DX Terminal Pro, a 21-day deployment in which 3,505 user-funded agents traded real ETH in a bounded onchain market. Users configured vaults through structured controls and natural-language strategies, but only agents could choose normal buy/sell trades. The system produced 7.5M agent invocations, roughly 300K onchain actions, about $20M in volume, more than 5,000 ETH deployed, roughly 70B inference tokens, and 99.9% settlement success for policy-valid submitted transactions. Long-running agents accumulated thousands of sequential decisions, including 6,000+ prompt-state-action cycles for continuously active agents, yielding a large-scale trace from user mandate to rendered prompt, reasoning, validation, portfolio state, and settlement. Reliability did not come from the base model alone; it emerged from the operating layer around the model: prompt compilation, typed controls, policy validation, execution guards, memory design, and trace-level observability. Pre-launch testing exposed failures that text-only benchmarks rarely measure, including fabricated trading rules, fee paralysis, numeric anchoring, cadence trading, and misread tokenomics. Targeted harness changes reduced fabricated sell rules from 57% to 3%, reduced fee-led observations from 32.5% to below 10%, and increased capital deployment from 42.9% to 78.0% in an affected test population. We show that capital-managing agents should be evaluated across the full path from user mandate to prompt, validated action, and settlement.

With the growing reliance on automated code completion tools in software development, the need for robust evaluation benchmarks has become critical. However, existing benchmarks focus more on code generation tasks in function and class level and provide rich text description to prompt the model. By contrast, such descriptive prompt is commonly unavailable in real development and code completion can occur in wider range of situations such as in the middle of a function or a code block. These limitations makes the evaluation poorly align with the practical scenarios of code completion tools. In this paper, we propose RepoMasterEval, a novel benchmark for evaluating code completion models constructed from real-world Python and TypeScript repositories. Each benchmark datum is generated by masking a code snippet (ground truth) from one source code file with existing test suites. To improve test accuracy of model generated code, we employ mutation testing to measure the effectiveness of the test cases and we manually crafted new test cases for those test suites with low mutation score. Our empirical evaluation on 6 state-of-the-art models shows that test argumentation is critical in improving the accuracy of the benchmark and RepoMasterEval is able to report difference in model performance in real-world scenarios. The deployment of RepoMasterEval in a collaborated company for one month also revealed that the benchmark is useful to give accurate feedback during model training and the score is in high correlation with the model's performance in practice. Based on our findings, we call for the software engineering community to build more LLM benchmarks tailored for code generation tools taking the practical and complex development environment into consideration.

Robustness evaluation must examine diverse visual perturbations, while benchmarks cover only some real-world conditions and physical testing is costly. Paired evaluations link clean and perturbed predictions for the same image, capturing changes in correctness, confidence, and acceptance beyond aggregate accuracy. We investigate how this image correspondence supports two needs in robustness evaluation: interpreting paired evaluation results and prioritizing samples for physical testing. To interpret paired evaluation results, we fix both sets of prediction records and vary their correspondence within each class. We prove that classwise correct-correct counts give the same sharp bounds on lost acceptance and mean true-class probability decrease among retained-correct inputs as any feasible five-state refinement. Distinguishing persistent from changed wrong answers can further constrain accepted-error transitions, while shared correspondence can establish policy orderings left unresolved by separate cost intervals. To prioritize samples for physical testing, we retain each image's synthetic responses and rank clean-correct images by their mean true-class probability under corruption. Across 44 classifiers, testing the highest-risk 20% finds 67% and 45% of failures under mild screen and print recaptures, versus 58% and 36% for clean confidence and 60% and 37% for an equal-size natural-transformation average. With both probability averaging and an A3Rank scoring adaptation, the tested corruption set yields higher mean failure recall than the natural-transform set; differences between scores depend on the source and budget. Together, these findings show that the value of correspondence depends on the evaluation objective: classwise counts suffice for specified reliability bounds, while image-specific synthetic responses improve the allocation of physical tests within the evaluated pool.

Rigorous software testing is crucial for developing and maintaining high-quality code, making automated test generation a promising avenue for both improving software quality and boosting the effectiveness of code generation methods. However, while code generation with Large Language Models (LLMs) is an extraordinarily active research area, test generation remains relatively unexplored. We address this gap and investigate the capability of LLM-based Code Agents for formalizing user issues into test cases. To this end, we propose a novel benchmark based on popular GitHub repositories, containing real-world issues, ground-truth patches, and golden tests. We find that LLMs generally perform surprisingly well at generating relevant test cases with Code Agents designed for code repair exceeding the performance of systems designed specifically for test generation. Further, as test generation is a similar but more structured task than code generation, it allows for a more fine-grained analysis using fail-to-pass rate and coverage metrics, providing a dual metric for analyzing systems designed for code repair. Finally, we find that generated tests are an effective filter for proposed code fixes, doubling the precision of SWE-Agent.

Implementing automated unit tests is an important but time-consuming activity in software development. To assist developers in this task, many techniques for automating unit test generation have been developed. However, despite this effort, usable tools exist for very few programming languages. Moreover, studies have found that automatically generated tests suffer poor readability and do not resemble developer-written tests. In this work, we present a rigorous investigation of how large language models (LLMs) can help bridge the gap. We describe a generic pipeline that incorporates static analysis to guide LLMs in generating compilable and high-coverage test cases. We illustrate how the pipeline can be applied to different programming languages, specifically Java and Python, and to complex software requiring environment mocking. We conducted an empirical study to assess the quality of the generated tests in terms of code coverage and test naturalness -- evaluating them on standard as well as enterprise Java applications and a large Python benchmark. Our results demonstrate that LLM-based test generation, when guided by static analysis, can be competitive with, and even outperform, state-of-the-art test-generation techniques in coverage achieved while also producing considerably more natural test cases that developers find easy to understand. We also present the results of a user study, conducted with 161 professional developers, that highlights the naturalness characteristics of the tests generated by our approach.

The rapid development of large language models (LLMs) has shown promising practical results. However, their low interpretability often leads to errors in unforeseen circumstances, limiting their utility. Many works have focused on creating comprehensive evaluation systems, but previous benchmarks have primarily assessed problem-solving abilities while neglecting the response's uncertainty, which may result in unreliability. Recent methods for measuring LLM reliability are resource-intensive and unable to test black-box models. To address this, we propose UBENCH, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating LLM reliability. UBENCH includes 3,978 multiple-choice questions covering knowledge, language, understanding, and reasoning abilities. Experimental results show that UBENCH has achieved state-of-the-art performance, while its single-sampling method significantly saves computational resources compared to baseline methods that require multiple samplings. Additionally, based on UBENCH, we evaluate the reliability of 15 popular LLMs, finding GLM4 to be the most outstanding, closely followed by GPT-4. We also explore the impact of Chain-of-Thought prompts, role-playing prompts, option order, and temperature on LLM reliability, analyzing the varying effects on different LLMs.

Large Language Models (LLMs) in Software Engineering (SE) can offer assistance for coding. To facilitate a rigorous evaluation of LLMs in practical coding contexts, Carlos et al. introduced the SWE-bench dataset, which comprises 2,294 real-world GitHub issues and their corresponding pull requests, collected from 12 widely used Python repositories. Several impressive LLM-based toolkits recently are developed and evaluated on this dataset. However, a systematic evaluation of the quality of SWE-bench remains missing. In this paper, we addressed this gap by presenting an empirical analysis of the SWE-bench dataset. We conducted a manual screening of instances where SWEAgent + GPT-4 successfully resolved issues by comparing the model-generated patches with the actual pull requests. SWE-Agent+GPT-4 was at the top of SWE-bench leaderboard during the time of our study. Our analysis reveals some critical issues with the SWE-bench dataset: 1) 32.67% of the successful patches involve cheating as the solutions were directly provided in the issue report or the comments. We refer to as solution leakage problem. 2) 31.08% of the passed patches are suspicious patches due to weak test cases, i.e., the tests were not adequate to verify the correctness of a patch. When we filtered out these problematic issues, the resolution rate of SWE-Agent+GPT-4 dropped from 12.47% to 3.97%. We also observed that the same data quality issues also exist in the two variants of SWE-bench, i.e., SWE-bench Lite and SWE-Bench Verified. In addition, over 94% of the issues were created before LLM's knowledge cutoff dates, posing potential data leakage issues.

In the age of open and free information, a concerning trend of reliance on AI is emerging. However, existing AI tools struggle to evaluate the credibility of information and to justify their assessments. Hence, there is a growing need for systems that can help users evaluate the trustworthiness of online information. Although major search engines incorporate AI features, they often lack clear reliability indicators. We present TrueGL, a model that makes trustworthy search results more accessible. The model is a fine-tuned version of IBM's Granite-1B, trained on the custom dataset and integrated into a search engine with a reliability scoring system. We evaluate the system using prompt engineering and assigning each statement a continuous reliability score from 0.1 to 1, then instructing the model to return a textual explanation alongside the score. Each model's predicted scores are measured against real scores using standard evaluation metrics. TrueGL consistently outperforms other small-scale LLMs and rule-based approaches across all experiments on key evaluation metrics, including MAE, RMSE, and R2. The model's high accuracy, broad content coverage, and ease of use make trustworthy information more accessible and help reduce the spread of false or misleading content online. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/AlgazinovAleksandr/TrueGL, and our model is publicly released at https://huggingface.co/JoydeepC/trueGL.

Although measuring held-out accuracy has been the primary approach to evaluate generalization, it often overestimates the performance of NLP models, while alternative approaches for evaluating models either focus on individual tasks or on specific behaviors. Inspired by principles of behavioral testing in software engineering, we introduce CheckList, a task-agnostic methodology for testing NLP models. CheckList includes a matrix of general linguistic capabilities and test types that facilitate comprehensive test ideation, as well as a software tool to generate a large and diverse number of test cases quickly. We illustrate the utility of CheckList with tests for three tasks, identifying critical failures in both commercial and state-of-art models. In a user study, a team responsible for a commercial sentiment analysis model found new and actionable bugs in an extensively tested model. In another user study, NLP practitioners with CheckList created twice as many tests, and found almost three times as many bugs as users without it.

Without proper safeguards, large language models will readily follow malicious instructions and generate toxic content. This motivates safety efforts such as red-teaming and large-scale feedback learning, which aim to make models both helpful and harmless. However, there is a tension between these two objectives, since harmlessness requires models to refuse complying with unsafe prompts, and thus not be helpful. Recent anecdotal evidence suggests that some models may have struck a poor balance, so that even clearly safe prompts are refused if they use similar language to unsafe prompts or mention sensitive topics. In this paper, we introduce a new test suite called XSTest to identify such eXaggerated Safety behaviours in a structured and systematic way. In its current form, XSTest comprises 200 safe prompts across ten prompt types that well-calibrated models should not refuse to comply with. We describe XSTest's creation and composition, and use the test suite to highlight systematic failure modes in a recently-released state-of-the-art language model.

Evaluating software engineering agents on realistic benchmarks is costly, since each task may require multi-step code exploration, modification, and test execution. Existing efficient evaluation methods select representative subsets to estimate full-benchmark performance, but are largely result-only: they fit historical pass/fail response matrices or static task semantics, discarding how agents solve problems. We propose PTA-IRT, a Privileged Trajectory-Aware Item Response Theory framework that fuses process and outcome signals. Historical execution trajectories supply process-level evidence beyond pass/fail, such as explored context, attempted edits, and solving paths, which PTA-IRT uses as privileged information for calibration subset selection and ability estimation. Under low calibration budgets, PTA-IRT consistently outperforms prior IRT baselines on score and ranking recovery across four SWE benchmarks. Code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/DeepSoftwareAnalytics/PTA-IRT.

Testing plays a crucial role in the software development cycle, enabling the detection of bugs, vulnerabilities, and other undesirable behaviors. To perform software testing, testers need to write code snippets that execute the program under test. Recently, researchers have recognized the potential of large language models (LLMs) in software testing. However, there remains a lack of fair comparisons between different LLMs in terms of test case generation capabilities. In this paper, we propose TESTEVAL, a novel benchmark for test case generation with LLMs. We collect 210 Python programs from an online programming platform, LeetCode, and design three different tasks: overall coverage, targeted line/branch coverage, and targeted path coverage. We further evaluate sixteen popular LLMs, including both commercial and open-source ones, on TESTEVAL. We find that generating test cases to cover specific program lines/branches/paths is still challenging for current LLMs, indicating a lack of ability to comprehend program logic and execution paths. We have open-sourced our dataset and benchmark pipelines at https://llm4softwaretesting.github.io to contribute and accelerate future research on LLMs for software testing.

One of the critical phases in software development is software testing. Testing helps with identifying potential bugs and reducing maintenance costs. The goal of automated test generation tools is to ease the development of tests by suggesting efficient bug-revealing tests. Recently, researchers have leveraged Large Language Models (LLMs) of code to generate unit tests. While the code coverage of generated tests was usually assessed, the literature has acknowledged that the coverage is weakly correlated with the efficiency of tests in bug detection. To improve over this limitation, in this paper, we introduce MuTAP for improving the effectiveness of test cases generated by LLMs in terms of revealing bugs by leveraging mutation testing. Our goal is achieved by augmenting prompts with surviving mutants, as those mutants highlight the limitations of test cases in detecting bugs. MuTAP is capable of generating effective test cases in the absence of natural language descriptions of the Program Under Test (PUTs). We employ different LLMs within MuTAP and evaluate their performance on different benchmarks. Our results show that our proposed method is able to detect up to 28% more faulty human-written code snippets. Among these, 17% remained undetected by both the current state-of-the-art fully automated test generation tool (i.e., Pynguin) and zero-shot/few-shot learning approaches on LLMs. Furthermore, MuTAP achieves a Mutation Score (MS) of 93.57% on synthetic buggy code, outperforming all other approaches in our evaluation. Our findings suggest that although LLMs can serve as a useful tool to generate test cases, they require specific post-processing steps to enhance the effectiveness of the generated test cases which may suffer from syntactic or functional errors and may be ineffective in detecting certain types of bugs and testing corner cases PUTs.

Large language models perform strongly on benchmarks in mathematical reasoning, coding and document analysis, suggesting a broad ability to follow instructions. However, it remains unclear whether such success reflects general logical competence, repeated application of learned procedures, or pattern matching that mimics rule execution. We investigate this question by introducing Stable Counting Capacity, an assay in which models count repeated symbols until failure. The assay removes knowledge dependencies, semantics and ambiguity from evaluation, avoids lexical and tokenization confounds, and provides a direct measure of procedural reliability beyond standard knowledge-based benchmarks. Here we show, across more than 100 model variants, that stable counting capacity remains far below advertised context limits. Model behavior is consistent neither with open-ended logic nor with stable application of a learned rule, but instead with use of a finite set of count-like internal states, analogous to counting on fingers. Once this resource is exhausted, the appearance of rule following disappears and exact execution collapses into guessing, even with additional test-time compute. These findings show that fluent performance in current language models does not guarantee general, reliable rule following.

Agent benchmarks often evaluate only final answers even when agents run on stateful runtimes. We argue this under-specifies what is being evaluated: the proper unit is a declared model-plus-runtime configuration whose failures can occur in evidence acquisition, runtime routing, safety boundaries, or repeated execution. We present ClawProBench, a trace-aware benchmark for runtime-native agent evaluation instantiated on OpenClaw, a live agent runtime with workspace tools and native surfaces for browsing, memory, messaging, scheduling, skills, and subagents. ClawProBench defines two tracks: a 102-scenario full profile with live workspace and native-runtime routing tasks, and a frozen 68-scenario holdout with closed-world JSON output contracts for robust ranking. Trials are scored from execution traces via a safety-gated formula combining correctness, process quality, and efficiency, preserving failure evidence for audit. Our anonymous artifact includes benchmark definitions, scoring code, manifests and sanitized traces. We evaluate 68 configurations on the full profile and 37 on holdout. The top safety-gated average trace score is 0.7671. Native-runtime tasks underperform workspace-live tasks (0.5238 vs. 0.6415). On holdout, pass@k-any outperforms strict three-trial pass (0.6638 vs. 0.2890), while full-profile and holdout rankings show weak alignment (Spearman 0.1300). Rankings based purely on correctness differ substantially from process-aware, safety-gated and strict-pass views. Final-answer leaderboards may hide native-surface weaknesses, one-off successes and trace-local agent failure modes.

Automated issue solving aims to resolve real-world issues in software repositories. The most popular benchmarks for automated issue solving are SWE-bench and its human-filtered subset SWE-bench Verified. These benchmarks leverage testing to validate generated patches. However, because testing is rarely exhaustive, a patch may pass the tests but nevertheless fail to match the developers' expectations. Unfortunately, it is currently unclear to what extent evaluations performed with SWE-bench suffer from such plausible but incorrect patches. This paper presents an in-depth empirical study of the correctness of plausible patches generated by three state-of-the-art issue-solving tools evaluated on SWE-bench Verified. We extensively test and inspect generated patches, and compare them against human-written ground truth patches. The core of our methodology is a novel technique PatchDiff for differential patch testing, which automatically exposes behavioral discrepancies between two patches. Our findings reveal critical weaknesses in SWE-bench's patch validation mechanism, which causes 7.8% of all patches to count as correct while failing the developer-written test suite. Moreover, our novel automated technique reveals that even more (29.6%) plausible patches induce different behavior than the ground truth patches. These behavioral differences are often due to similar, but divergent implementations (46.8%) and due to generated patches that adapt more behavior than the ground truth patches (27.3%). Our manual inspection shows that 28.6% of behaviorally divergent patches are certainly incorrect. Combined, the different weaknesses lead to an inflation of reported resolution rates by 6.2 absolute percent points. Our findings are a call to arms for more robust and reliable evaluation of issue-solving tools. We envision our automated differential patch testing technique to be useful for this purpose.

Despite widespread deployment of Large Language Models, systematic evaluation of instruction-following capabilities remains challenging. While comprehensive benchmarks exist, focused assessments that quickly diagnose specific instruction adherence patterns are valuable. As newer models may be trained on existing benchmarks, novel evaluation approaches are needed to assess genuine capabilities rather than memorized performance. This paper presents a streamlined evaluation framework using twenty carefully designed prompts to assess LLM instruction-following across diverse task categories. We demonstrate this framework through a large-scale empirical study conducted on October 14, 2025, testing 256 verified working models from 331 available via OpenRouter. To ensure methodological rigor and prevent selection bias, we first verified each model's basic functionality before inclusion. Unlike large-scale benchmarks requiring extensive computational resources, our approach offers a practical diagnostic tool researchers and practitioners can readily apply. Our methodology builds upon verifiable instructions while introducing a compact test suite balancing comprehensiveness with efficiency. Each prompt targets distinct aspects of instruction following, including format compliance, content constraints, logical sequencing, and multi-step task execution. We evaluate models from major providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Meta, Mistral) and emerging implementations (Qwen, DeepSeek, community models), providing comparative performance analysis. Our findings reveal consistent failure modes and identify specific instruction types posing particular challenges. This work contributes both a practical evaluation tool and one of the most comprehensive empirical analyses of instruction-following capabilities across the contemporary LLM landscape.

Just-in-Time software defect prediction (JIT-SDP) plays a critical role in prioritizing risky code changes during code review and continuous integration. However, existing datasets often suffer from noisy labels and low precision in identifying bug-inducing commits. To address this, we present ReDef (Revert-based Defect dataset), a high-confidence benchmark of function-level modifications curated from 22 large-scale C/C++ projects. Defective cases are anchored by revert commits, while clean cases are validated through post-hoc history checks. Ambiguous instances are conservatively filtered out via a GPT-assisted triage process involving multiple votes and audits. This pipeline yields 3,164 defective and 10,268 clean modifications, offering substantially more reliable labels than prior resources. Beyond dataset construction, we provide a systematic evaluation of how Code Language Models (CLMs)-specifically CodeBERT, CodeT5+, UniXcoder, and Qwen2.5-reason about code modifications. We first investigate which input encodings most effectively expose change information under five different strategies. We then design four counterfactual perturbation strategies (e.g., swapping added/deleted blocks, inverting diff polarity) to serve as diagnostic probes. We posit that if models genuinely capture change semantics, such distortions should lead to a clear decline in predictive performance. Our results show that compact diff-style encodings consistently outperform whole-function formats across all CLMs, supported by rigorous statistical confirmation. However, under counterfactual tests, performance remains effectively stable, revealing that what appears to be robustness in fact reflects a reliance on superficial cues rather than true semantic understanding.

Large language models are trained on vast amounts of internet data, prompting concerns and speculation that they have memorized public benchmarks. Going from speculation to proof of contamination is challenging, as the pretraining data used by proprietary models are often not publicly accessible. We show that it is possible to provide provable guarantees of test set contamination in language models without access to pretraining data or model weights. Our approach leverages the fact that when there is no data contamination, all orderings of an exchangeable benchmark should be equally likely. In contrast, the tendency for language models to memorize example order means that a contaminated language model will find certain canonical orderings to be much more likely than others. Our test flags potential contamination whenever the likelihood of a canonically ordered benchmark dataset is significantly higher than the likelihood after shuffling the examples. We demonstrate that our procedure is sensitive enough to reliably prove test set contamination in challenging situations, including models as small as 1.4 billion parameters, on small test sets of only 1000 examples, and datasets that appear only a few times in the pretraining corpus. Using our test, we audit five popular publicly accessible language models for test set contamination and find little evidence for pervasive contamination.

The remarkable capability of large language models (LLMs) in generating high-quality code has drawn increasing attention in the software testing community. However, existing code LLMs often demonstrate unsatisfactory capabilities in generating accurate and complete tests since they were trained on code snippets collected without differentiating between code for testing purposes and other code. In this paper, we present a large-scale dataset UniTSyn, which is capable of enhancing the prowess of LLMs for Unit Test Synthesis. Associating tests with the tested functions is crucial for LLMs to infer the expected behavior and the logic paths to be verified. By leveraging Language Server Protocol, UniTSyn achieves the challenging goal of collecting focal-test pairs without per-project execution setups or per-language heuristics that tend to be fragile and difficult to scale. It contains 2.7 million focal-test pairs across five mainstream programming languages, making it possible to be utilized for enhancing the test generation ability of LLMs. The details of UniTSyn can be found in Table 1. Our experiments demonstrate that, by building an autoregressive model based on UniTSyn, we can achieve significant benefits in learning and understanding unit test representations, resulting in improved generation accuracy and code coverage across all evaluated programming languages. Code and data will be publicly available.

Corruption studies, the primary tool for evaluating chain-of-thought (CoT) faithfulness, identify which chain positions are "computationally important" by measuring accuracy when steps are replaced with errors. We identify a systematic confound: for chains with explicit terminal answer statements, the dominant format in standard benchmarks, corruption studies detect where the answer text appears, not where computation occurs. A within-dataset format ablation provides the key evidence: on standard GSM8K chains ending with "the answer is X," removing only the answer statement, preserving all reasoning, collapses suffix sensitivity ~19x at 3B (N=300, p=0.022). Conflicting-answer experiments quantify the causal mechanism: at 7B, CC accuracy drops to near-zero (<=0.02) across five architecture families; the followed-wrong rate spans 0.63-1.00 at 3B-7B and attenuates at larger scales (0.300 at Phi-4-14B, ~0.01 at 32B). A within-stable 7B replication (9.3x attenuation, N=76, p=7.8e-3; Qwen3-8B N=299, p=0.004) provides converging evidence, and the pattern replicates on MATH (DeepSeek-R1-7B: 10.9x suffix-survival recovery). On chains without answer suffixes the same protocol identifies the prefix as load-bearing (Delta=-0.77, p<10^-12). Generation-time probes confirm a dissociation: the answer is not early-determined during generation (early commitment <5%), yet at consumption time model outputs systematically follow the explicit answer text. The format-determination effect persists through 14B (8.5x ratio, p=0.001) and converges toward zero at 32B. We propose a three-prerequisite protocol (question-only control, format characterization, all-position sweep) as a minimum standard for corruption-based faithfulness studies.

Writing tests is a time-consuming yet essential task during software development. We propose to leverage recent advances in deep learning for text and code generation to assist developers in writing tests. We formalize the novel task of test completion to automatically complete the next statement in a test method based on the context of prior statements and the code under test. We develop TeCo -- a deep learning model using code semantics for test completion. The key insight underlying TeCo is that predicting the next statement in a test method requires reasoning about code execution, which is hard to do with only syntax-level data that existing code completion models use. TeCo extracts and uses six kinds of code semantics data, including the execution result of prior statements and the execution context of the test method. To provide a testbed for this new task, as well as to evaluate TeCo, we collect a corpus of 130,934 test methods from 1,270 open-source Java projects. Our results show that TeCo achieves an exact-match accuracy of 18, which is 29% higher than the best baseline using syntax-level data only. When measuring functional correctness of generated next statement, TeCo can generate runnable code in 29% of the cases compared to 18% obtained by the best baseline. Moreover, TeCo is significantly better than prior work on test oracle generation.