A Study of Using Multimodal LLMs for Non-Crash Functional Bug Detection in Android Apps

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.19053v1
• Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2024 19:18:35 GMT
• Title: A Study of Using Multimodal LLMs for Non-Crash Functional Bug Detection in Android Apps
• Abstract summary: This study empirically investigates the capability of leveraging large language models (LLMs) to be test oracles to detect non-crash functional (NCF) bugs in Android apps. We conducted a comprehensive empirical study to explore the effectiveness of LLMs for detecting NCF bugs in Android apps on 71 well-documented NCF bugs. We successfully detected 24 previously unknown NCF bugs in 64 Android apps, with four of these bugs being confirmed or fixed.
• Score: 6.490384059173902
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Numerous approaches employing various strategies have been developed to test the graphical user interfaces (GUIs) of mobile apps. However, traditional GUI testing techniques, such as random and model-based testing, primarily focus on generating test sequences that excel in achieving high code coverage but often fail to act as effective test oracles for non-crash functional (NCF) bug detection. To tackle these limitations, this study empirically investigates the capability of leveraging large language models (LLMs) to be test oracles to detect NCF bugs in Android apps. Our intuition is that the training corpora of LLMs, encompassing extensive mobile app usage and bug report descriptions, enable them with the domain knowledge relevant to NCF bug detection. We conducted a comprehensive empirical study to explore the effectiveness of LLMs as test oracles for detecting NCF bugs in Android apps on 71 well-documented NCF bugs. The results demonstrated that LLMs achieve a 49% bug detection rate, outperforming existing tools for detecting NCF bugs in Android apps. Additionally, by leveraging LLMs to be test oracles, we successfully detected 24 previously unknown NCF bugs in 64 Android apps, with four of these bugs being confirmed or fixed. However, we also identified limitations of LLMs, primarily related to performance degradation, inherent randomness, and false positives. Our study highlights the potential of leveraging LLMs as test oracles for Android NCF bug detection and suggests directions for future research.

Related papers

• Evaluating and Mitigating the Misguidance Effect of Buggy Code in LLM-Generated Unit Tests [6.228248513679207]
  This paper presents a new metric to measure the "misguidance effect," a phenomenon where buggy code steers LLMs toward generating tests that validate its erroneous behavior rather than expose it.<n>We introduce and validate a specification-based unit test generation paradigm that replaces the code under test in the prompt with an LLM-generated specification docstring.<n>Our results show that this paradigm effectively reduces misguided tests while substantially increasing effective tests, improves multi-round, feedback-driven test generation pipelines, and remains applicable to both buggy and bug-free code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-24T19:47:41Z)
• LLM-Based Invariant Testing for Software Functional Bugs [4.8632580114281065]
  We present LISA, a novel LLM-based invariant testing framework for software functional bugs.<n> LISA iteratively generates API sequences and program invariants guided by API n-gram feedback.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-21T05:07:22Z)
• The Foundation Cracks: A Comprehensive Study on Bugs and Testing Practices in LLM Libraries [37.57398329330302]
  Large Language Model (LLM) libraries have emerged as the foundational infrastructure powering today's AI revolution.<n>Despite their critical role in the LLM ecosystem, these libraries face frequent quality issues and bugs that threaten the reliability of AI systems built upon them.<n>We present the first comprehensive empirical investigation into bug characteristics and testing practices in modern LLM libraries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-14T03:00:36Z)
• MMLU-CF: A Contamination-free Multi-task Language Understanding Benchmark [57.999567012489706]
  We propose a contamination-free and more challenging benchmark called MMLU-CF. This benchmark reassesses LLMs' understanding of world knowledge by averting both unintentional and malicious data leakage. Our evaluation of mainstream LLMs reveals that the powerful GPT-4o achieves merely a 5-shot score of 73.4% and a 0-shot score of 71.9% on the test set.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-19T18:58:04Z)
• Design choices made by LLM-based test generators prevent them from finding bugs [0.850206009406913]
  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. 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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-18T18:33:26Z)
• Test smells in LLM-Generated Unit Tests [11.517293765116307]
  This study explores the diffusion of test smells in Large Language Models generated unit test suites. We analyze a benchmark of 20,500 LLM-generated test suites produced by four models across five prompt engineering techniques. We identify and analyze the prevalence and co-occurrence of various test smells in both human written and LLM-generated test suites.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T15:35:44Z)
• Rethinking the Influence of Source Code on Test Case Generation [22.168699378889148]
  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? Our evaluation results demonstrate that incorrect code can significantly mislead LLMs in generating correct, high-coverage, and bug-revealing tests.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-14T15:17:34Z)
• Exploring Automatic Cryptographic API Misuse Detection in the Era of LLMs [60.32717556756674]
  This paper introduces a systematic evaluation framework to assess Large Language Models in detecting cryptographic misuses. Our in-depth analysis of 11,940 LLM-generated reports highlights that the inherent instabilities in LLMs can lead to over half of the reports being false positives. The optimized approach achieves a remarkable detection rate of nearly 90%, surpassing traditional methods and uncovering previously unknown misuses in established benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-23T15:31:26Z)
• Large-scale, Independent and Comprehensive study of the power of LLMs for test case generation [11.517293765116307]
  Unit testing is essential for software reliability, yet manual test creation is time-consuming and often neglected.<n>This study presents the first large-scale empirical evaluation of LLM-generated unit tests at the class level.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-28T20:38:41Z)
• AutoDetect: Towards a Unified Framework for Automated Weakness Detection in Large Language Models [95.09157454599605]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are becoming increasingly powerful, but they still exhibit significant but subtle weaknesses. Traditional benchmarking approaches cannot thoroughly pinpoint specific model deficiencies. We introduce a unified framework, AutoDetect, to automatically expose weaknesses in LLMs across various tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-24T15:16:45Z)
• Anomaly Detection of Tabular Data Using LLMs [54.470648484612866]
  We show that pre-trained large language models (LLMs) are zero-shot batch-level anomaly detectors. We propose an end-to-end fine-tuning strategy to bring out the potential of LLMs in detecting real anomalies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-24T04:17:03Z)
• TOGLL: Correct and Strong Test Oracle Generation with LLMs [0.8057006406834466]
  Test oracles play a crucial role in software testing, enabling effective bug detection. Despite initial promise, neural-based methods for automated test oracle generation often result in a large number of false positives. We present the first comprehensive study to investigate the capabilities of LLMs in generating correct, diverse, and strong test oracles.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-06T18:37:35Z)
• GPT-HateCheck: Can LLMs Write Better Functional Tests for Hate Speech Detection? [50.53312866647302]
  HateCheck is a suite for testing fine-grained model functionalities on synthesized data. We propose GPT-HateCheck, a framework to generate more diverse and realistic functional tests from scratch. Crowd-sourced annotation demonstrates that the generated test cases are of high quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-23T10:02:01Z)
• DebugBench: Evaluating Debugging Capability of Large Language Models [80.73121177868357]
  DebugBench is a benchmark for Large Language Models (LLMs) It covers four major bug categories and 18 minor types in C++, Java, and Python. We evaluate two commercial and four open-source models in a zero-shot scenario.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-09T15:46:38Z)
• Effective Test Generation Using Pre-trained Large Language Models and Mutation Testing [13.743062498008555]
  We introduce MuTAP for improving the effectiveness of test cases generated by Large Language Models (LLMs) in terms of revealing bugs. MuTAP is capable of generating effective test cases in the absence of natural language descriptions of the Program Under Test (PUTs) Our results show that our proposed method is able to detect up to 28% more faulty human-written code snippets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-31T08:48:31Z)
• LLMs as Factual Reasoners: Insights from Existing Benchmarks and Beyond [135.8013388183257]
  We propose a new protocol for inconsistency detection benchmark creation and implement it in a 10-domain benchmark called SummEdits. Most LLMs struggle on SummEdits, with performance close to random chance. The best-performing model, GPT-4, is still 8% below estimated human performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T21:50:06Z)
• Large Language Models are Few-shot Testers: Exploring LLM-based General Bug Reproduction [14.444294152595429]
  The number of tests added in open source repositories due to issues was about 28% of the corresponding project test suite size. We propose LIBRO, a framework that uses Large Language Models (LLMs), which have been shown to be capable of performing code-related tasks. Our evaluation of LIBRO shows that, on the widely studied Defects4J benchmark, LIBRO can generate failure reproducing test cases for 33% of all studied cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-23T10:50:47Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.