Precisely Detecting Python Type Errors via LLM-based Unit Test Generation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.02318v1
• Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2025 05:10:33 GMT
• Title: Precisely Detecting Python Type Errors via LLM-based Unit Test Generation
• Authors: Chen Yang, Ziqi Wang, Yanjie Jiang, Lin Yang, Yuteng Zheng, Jianyi Zhou, Junjie Chen,
• Abstract summary: RTED is a type-aware test generation technique for automatically detecting Python type errors.<n>We show that RTED can detect 22-29 more benchmarked type errors than four state-of-the-art techniques.<n>It is also capable of producing fewer false positives, achieving an improvement of 173.9%-245.9% in precision.
• Score: 12.250956276862302
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Type errors in Python often lead to runtime failures, posing significant challenges to software reliability and developer productivity. Existing static analysis tools aim to detect such errors without execution but frequently suffer from high false positive rates. Recently, unit test generation techniques offer great promise in achieving high test coverage, but they often struggle to produce bug-revealing tests without tailored guidance. To address these limitations, we present RTED, a novel type-aware test generation technique for automatically detecting Python type errors. Specifically, RTED combines step-by-step type constraint analysis with reflective validation to guide the test generation process and effectively suppress false positives. We evaluated RTED on two widely-used benchmarks, BugsInPy and TypeBugs. Experimental results show that RTED can detect 22-29 more benchmarked type errors than four state-of-the-art techniques. RTED is also capable of producing fewer false positives, achieving an improvement of 173.9%-245.9% in precision. Furthermore, RTED successfully discovered 12 previously unknown type errors from six real-world open-source Python projects.

Related papers

• LLM-based Unit Test Generation for Dynamically-Typed Programs [16.38145000434927]
  TypeTest is a novel framework that enhances type correctness in test generation through a vector-based Retrieval-Augmented Generation system.<n>In an evaluation on 125 real-world Python modules, TypeTest achieved an average statement coverage of 86.6% and branch coverage of 76.8%, outperforming state-of-theart tools by 5.4% and 9.3%, respectively.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-18T08:07:17Z)
• Do Large Language Model Benchmarks Test Reliability? [66.1783478365998]
  We investigate how well current benchmarks quantify model reliability.<n>Motivated by this gap in the evaluation of reliability, we propose the concept of so-called platinum benchmarks.<n>We evaluate a wide range of models on these platinum benchmarks and find that, indeed, frontier LLMs still exhibit failures on simple tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-05T18:58:19Z)
• Subgraph-Oriented Testing for Deep Learning Libraries [9.78188667672054]
  We propose SORT (Subgraph-Oriented Realistic Testing) to test Deep Learning (DL) libraries on different hardware platforms.<n>SORT takes popular API interaction patterns, represented as frequent subgraphs of model graphs, as test subjects.<n>SORT achieves a 100% valid input generation rate, detects more precision bugs than existing methods, and reveals interaction-related bugs missed by single-API testing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-09T12:10:48Z)
• 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)
• 230,439 Test Failures Later: An Empirical Evaluation of Flaky Failure Classifiers [9.45325012281881]
  Flaky tests are tests that can non-deterministically pass or fail, even in the absence of code changes. How to quickly determine if a test failed due to flakiness, or if it detected a bug?
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-28T22:36:30Z)
• Test Generation Strategies for Building Failure Models and Explaining Spurious Failures [4.995172162560306]
  Test inputs fail not only when the system under test is faulty but also when the inputs are invalid or unrealistic. We propose to build failure models for inferring interpretable rules on test inputs that cause spurious failures. We show that our proposed surrogate-assisted approach generates failure models with an average accuracy of 83%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-09T18:36:15Z)
• 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)
• On the Blind Spots of Model-Based Evaluation Metrics for Text Generation [79.01422521024834]
  We explore a useful but often neglected methodology for robustness analysis of text generation evaluation metrics. We design and synthesize a wide range of potential errors and check whether they result in a commensurate drop in the metric scores. Our experiments reveal interesting insensitivities, biases, or even loopholes in existing metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-20T06:24:25Z)
• Fault-Aware Neural Code Rankers [64.41888054066861]
  We propose fault-aware neural code rankers that can predict the correctness of a sampled program without executing it. Our fault-aware rankers can significantly increase the pass@1 accuracy of various code generation models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-04T22:01:05Z)
• 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)
• TACRED Revisited: A Thorough Evaluation of the TACRED Relation Extraction Task [80.38130122127882]
  TACRED is one of the largest, most widely used crowdsourced datasets in Relation Extraction (RE) In this paper, we investigate the questions: Have we reached a performance ceiling or is there still room for improvement? We find that label errors account for 8% absolute F1 test error, and that more than 50% of the examples need to be relabeled.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-30T15:07:37Z)

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.