Benchmarking LLMs for Unit Test Generation from Real-World Functions

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.00408v1
• Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2025 08:08:26 GMT
• Title: Benchmarking LLMs for Unit Test Generation from Real-World Functions
• Authors: Dong Huang, Jie M. Zhang, Mark Harman, Qianru Zhang, Mingzhe Du, See-Kiong Ng,
• Abstract summary: We introduce ULT (UnLeakedTestbench), a new benchmark specifically designed for function-level unit test generation from real-world Python functions.<n>With 3,909 carefully selected function-level tasks, ULT provides a more realistic and challenging evaluation of LLMs' test generation capabilities.<n>Our evaluation results demonstrate that ULT is significantly more challenging.
• Score: 34.70460519870186
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Recently, large language models (LLMs) have shown great promise in automating unit test generation, significantly reducing the manual effort required by developers. To effectively evaluate the capabilities of LLMs in this domain, it is crucial to have a well-designed benchmark that accurately reflects real-world scenarios and mitigates common pitfalls. Existing LLM test generation benchmarks are limited by two critical drawbacks: data contamination and structurally simple function code. As a result, we often cannot rely on the validity of scientific conclusions drawn from empirical studies using these limited benchmarks. The empirical evidence presented may be biased due to contamination and may fail to generalize beyond toy programs due to structural simplicity. To address these problems, we introduce ULT (UnLeakedTestbench), a new benchmark specifically designed for function-level unit test generation from real-world Python functions. ULT is constructed through a multi-stage curation process that ensures high cyclomatic complexity and mitigates test case contamination. With 3,909 carefully selected function-level tasks, ULT provides a more realistic and challenging evaluation of LLMs' test generation capabilities. We also provide PLT (PreLeakedTestbench), a pair benchmark of ULT with leaked tests designed to enable a controlled analysis of memorization versus reasoning in test generation. Our evaluation results demonstrate that ULT is significantly more challenging. For example, test cases generated by LLMs only achieve 41.32\%, 45.10\%, 30.22\%, and 40.21\% for accuracy, statement coverage, branch coverage, and mutation score on average for all LLMs, respectively. These results are substantially lower than the corresponding metrics on TestEval (91.79\%, 92.18\%, 82.04\%, and 49.69\%) and PLT (47.07\%, 55.13\%, 40.07\%, and 50.80\%).

Related papers

• YATE: The Role of Test Repair in LLM-Based Unit Test Generation [22.67442101368384]
  We propose a technique for repairing some of these incorrect tests through a combination of rule-based static analysis and re-prompting.<n>We evaluate this simple approach, named YATE, on a set of 6 open-source projects.<n>YATE achieves 22% higher line coverage, 20% higher branch coverage and kill 20% more mutants at a comparable cost.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-24T11:32:31Z)
• ToolScan: A Benchmark for Characterizing Errors in Tool-Use LLMs [77.79172008184415]
  TOOLSCAN is a new benchmark to identify error patterns in LLM output on tool-use tasks.<n>We show that even the most prominent LLMs exhibit these error patterns in their outputs.<n>Researchers can use these insights from TOOLSCAN to guide their error mitigation strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-20T18:56:22Z)
• Toward Automated Validation of Language Model Synthesized Test Cases using Semantic Entropy [0.5057850174013127]
  Modern Large Language Model (LLM)-based programming agents often rely on test execution feedback to refine their generated code.<n>This paper introduces VALTEST, a novel framework that leverages semantic entropy to automatically validate test cases generated by LLMs.<n>Experiments show that VALTEST boosts test validity by up to 29% and improves code generation performance, as evidenced by significant increases in pass@1 scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-13T00:07:32Z)
• AIME: AI System Optimization via Multiple LLM Evaluators [79.03422337674664]
  AIME is an evaluation protocol that utilizes multiple LLMs that each independently generate an evaluation on separate criteria and then combine them via concatenation. We show AIME outperforming baseline methods in code generation tasks, with up to $62%$ higher error detection rate and up to $16%$ higher success rate than a single LLM evaluation protocol on LeetCodeHard and HumanEval datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-04T04:03:24Z)
• 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)
• BigCodeBench: Benchmarking Code Generation with Diverse Function Calls and Complex Instructions [72.56339136017759]
  We introduce BigCodeBench, a benchmark that challenges Large Language Models (LLMs) to invoke multiple function calls as tools from 139 libraries and 7 domains for 1,140 fine-grained tasks.<n>Our evaluation shows that LLMs are not yet capable of following complex instructions to use function calls precisely, with scores up to 60%, significantly lower than the human performance of 97%.<n>We propose a natural-language-oriented variant of BigCodeBench, BigCodeBench-Instruct, that automatically transforms the original docstrings into short instructions only with essential information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-22T15:52:04Z)
• Inference-Time Decontamination: Reusing Leaked Benchmarks for Large Language Model Evaluation [61.350306618479365]
  Leakage of benchmarks can prevent the accurate assessment of large language models' true performance. We propose Inference-Time Decontamination (ITD) to address this issue. ITD reduces inflated accuracy by 22.9% on GSM8K and 19.0% on MMLU.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T04:35:59Z)
• Assessing the Reliability of Large Language Model Knowledge [78.38870272050106]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been treated as knowledge bases due to their strong performance in knowledge probing tasks. How do we evaluate the capabilities of LLMs to consistently produce factually correct answers? We propose MOdel kNowledge relIabiliTy scORe (MONITOR), a novel metric designed to directly measure LLMs' factual reliability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-15T12:40:30Z)
• 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)
• An Empirical Evaluation of Using Large Language Models for Automated Unit Test Generation [3.9762912548964864]
  This paper presents a large-scale empirical evaluation on the effectiveness of Large Language Models for automated unit test generation. 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 find that 92.8% of TestPilot's generated tests have no more than 50% similarity with existing tests.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-13T17:13:41Z)

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.