VALTEST: Automated Validation of Language Model Generated Test Cases

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2411.08254v1
• Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2024 00:07:32 GMT
• Title: VALTEST: Automated Validation of Language Model Generated Test Cases
• Authors: Hamed Taherkhani, Hadi Hemmati,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant potential in automating software testing, specifically in generating unit test cases. This paper introduces VALTEST, a novel framework designed to automatically validate test cases generated by LLMs by leveraging token probabilities.
• Score: 0.7059472280274008
• License:
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant potential in automating software testing, specifically in generating unit test cases. However, the validation of LLM-generated test cases remains a challenge, particularly when the ground truth is unavailable. This paper introduces VALTEST, a novel framework designed to automatically validate test cases generated by LLMs by leveraging token probabilities. We evaluate VALTEST using nine test suites generated from three datasets (HumanEval, MBPP, and LeetCode) across three LLMs (GPT-4o, GPT-3.5-turbo, and LLama3.1 8b). By extracting statistical features from token probabilities, we train a machine learning model to predict test case validity. VALTEST increases the validity rate of test cases by 6.2% to 24%, depending on the dataset and LLM. Our results suggest that token probabilities are reliable indicators for distinguishing between valid and invalid test cases, which provides a robust solution for improving the correctness of LLM-generated test cases in software testing. In addition, we found that replacing the identified invalid test cases by VALTEST, using a Chain-of-Thought prompting results in a more effective test suite while keeping the high validity rates.

Related papers

• Training on the Benchmark Is Not All You Need [52.01920740114261]
  We propose a simple and effective data leakage detection method based on the contents of multiple-choice options. Our method is able to work under black-box conditions without access to model training data or weights. We evaluate the degree of data leakage of 31 mainstream open-source LLMs on four benchmark datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-03T11:09:44Z)
• Improving LLM-based Unit test generation via Template-based Repair [8.22619177301814]
  Unit test is crucial for detecting bugs in individual program units but consumes time and effort. Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable reasoning and generation capabilities. In this paper, we propose TestART, a novel unit test generation method.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-06T10:52:41Z)
• Test Oracle Automation in the era of LLMs [52.69509240442899]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable proficiency in tackling diverse software testing tasks. This paper aims to enable discussions on the potential of using LLMs for test oracle automation, along with the challenges that may emerge during the generation of various types of oracles.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-21T13:19:10Z)
• Large Language Models as Test Case Generators: Performance Evaluation and Enhancement [3.5398126682962587]
  We study how well Large Language Models can generate high-quality test cases. We propose a multi-agent framework called emphTestChain that decouples the generation of test inputs and test outputs. Our results indicate that TestChain outperforms the baseline by a large margin.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-20T10:27:01Z)
• LLM-Powered Test Case Generation for Detecting Tricky Bugs [30.82169191775785]
  AID generates test inputs and oracles targeting plausibly correct programs. We evaluate AID on two large-scale datasets with tricky bugs: TrickyBugs and EvalPlus. The evaluation results show that the recall, precision, and F1 score of AID outperform the state-of-the-art by up to 1.80x, 2.65x, and 1.66x, respectively.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-16T06:20:06Z)
• 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)
• Self-Evaluation Improves Selective Generation in Large Language Models [54.003992911447696]
  We reformulate open-ended generation tasks into token-level prediction tasks. We instruct an LLM to self-evaluate its answers. We benchmark a range of scoring methods based on self-evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-14T19:09:22Z)
• 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)
• Efficient Test-Time Model Adaptation without Forgetting [60.36499845014649]
  Test-time adaptation seeks to tackle potential distribution shifts between training and testing data. We propose an active sample selection criterion to identify reliable and non-redundant samples. We also introduce a Fisher regularizer to constrain important model parameters from drastic changes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-06T06:39:40Z)
• Detection of Coincidentally Correct Test Cases through Random Forests [1.2891210250935143]
  We propose a hybrid approach of ensemble learning combined with a supervised learning algorithm namely, Random Forests (RF) for the purpose of correctly identifying test cases that are mislabeled to be the passing test cases. A cost-effective analysis of flipping the test status or trimming (i.e., eliminating from the computation) the coincidental correct test cases is also reported.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-14T15:01:53Z)
• Beyond Accuracy: Behavioral Testing of NLP models with CheckList [66.42971817954806]
  CheckList is a task-agnostic methodology for testing NLP models. CheckList includes a matrix of general linguistic capabilities and test types that facilitate comprehensive test ideation. In a user study, NLP practitioners with CheckList created twice as many tests, and found almost three times as many bugs as users without it.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-08T15:48:31Z)

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.