Metamorphic Testing of Large Language Models for Natural Language Processing

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2511.02108v1
• Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2025 22:48:19 GMT
• Title: Metamorphic Testing of Large Language Models for Natural Language Processing
• Authors: Steven Cho, Stefano Ruberto, Valerio Terragni,
• Abstract summary: Using large language models (LLMs) to perform natural language processing (NLP) tasks has become increasingly pervasive in recent times.<n>One obstacle to this is the limited availability of labeled datasets.<n> Metamorphic testing (MT) is a popular testing approach that alleviates this oracle problem.
• Score: 2.2302915692528367
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Using large language models (LLMs) to perform natural language processing (NLP) tasks has become increasingly pervasive in recent times. The versatile nature of LLMs makes them applicable to a wide range of such tasks. While the performance of recent LLMs is generally outstanding, several studies have shown that they can often produce incorrect results. Automatically identifying these faulty behaviors is extremely useful for improving the effectiveness of LLMs. One obstacle to this is the limited availability of labeled datasets, which necessitates an oracle to determine the correctness of LLM behaviors. Metamorphic testing (MT) is a popular testing approach that alleviates this oracle problem. At the core of MT are metamorphic relations (MRs), which define relationships between the outputs of related inputs. MT can expose faulty behaviors without the need for explicit oracles (e.g., labeled datasets). This paper presents the most comprehensive study of MT for LLMs to date. We conducted a literature review and collected 191 MRs for NLP tasks. We implemented a representative subset (36 MRs) to conduct a series of experiments with three popular LLMs, running approximately 560,000 metamorphic tests. The results shed light on the capabilities and opportunities of MT for LLMs, as well as its limitations.

Related papers

• An Empirical Study of Many-to-Many Summarization with Large Language Models [82.10000188179168]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown strong multi-lingual abilities, giving them the potential to perform Many-to-many summarization (M2MS) in real applications.<n>This work presents a systematic empirical study on LLMs' M2MS ability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-19T11:18:54Z)
• LLMs Get Lost In Multi-Turn Conversation [44.26588510453331]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are conversational interfaces.<n>LLMs have the potential to assist their users not only when they can fully specify the task at hand, but also to help them define, explore, and refine what they need through multi-turn conversational exchange.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-09T15:21:44Z)
• 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)
• SELF-GUIDE: Better Task-Specific Instruction Following via Self-Synthetic Finetuning [70.21358720599821]
  Large language models (LLMs) hold the promise of solving diverse tasks when provided with appropriate natural language prompts. We propose SELF-GUIDE, a multi-stage mechanism in which we synthesize task-specific input-output pairs from the student LLM. We report an absolute improvement of approximately 15% for classification tasks and 18% for generation tasks in the benchmark's metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-16T04:41:58Z)
• DARG: Dynamic Evaluation of Large Language Models via Adaptive Reasoning Graph [70.79413606968814]
  We introduce Dynamic Evaluation of LLMs via Adaptive Reasoning Graph Evolvement (DARG) to dynamically extend current benchmarks with controlled complexity and diversity. Specifically, we first extract the reasoning graphs of data points in current benchmarks and then perturb the reasoning graphs to generate novel testing data. Such newly generated test samples can have different levels of complexity while maintaining linguistic diversity similar to the original benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-25T04:27:53Z)
• Tokenization Matters! Degrading Large Language Models through Challenging Their Tokenization [12.418844515095035]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) tend to produce inaccurate responses to specific queries.<n> incorrect tokenization is the critical point that hinders LLMs in understanding the input precisely.<n>We construct an adversarial dataset, named as $textbfADT (Adrial dataset for Tokenizer)$, which draws upon the vocabularies of various open-source LLMs to challenge LLMs' tokenization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-27T11:39:59Z)
• Evaluating Diverse Large Language Models for Automatic and General Bug Reproduction [12.851941377433285]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been demonstrated to be adept at natural language processing and code generation. Our proposed technique LIBRO could successfully reproduce about one-third of all bugs in the widely used Defects4J benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-08T08:42:30Z)
• ReEval: Automatic Hallucination Evaluation for Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models via Transferable Adversarial Attacks [91.55895047448249]
  This paper presents ReEval, an LLM-based framework using prompt chaining to perturb the original evidence for generating new test cases. We implement ReEval using ChatGPT and evaluate the resulting variants of two popular open-domain QA datasets. Our generated data is human-readable and useful to trigger hallucination in large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-19T06:37:32Z)
• 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)
• TRACE: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Continual Learning in Large Language Models [52.734140807634624]
  Aligned large language models (LLMs) demonstrate exceptional capabilities in task-solving, following instructions, and ensuring safety. Existing continual learning benchmarks lack sufficient challenge for leading aligned LLMs. We introduce TRACE, a novel benchmark designed to evaluate continual learning in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-10T16:38:49Z)
• Multilingual Machine Translation with Large Language Models: Empirical Results and Analysis [103.89753784762445]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable potential in handling multilingual machine translation (MMT) This paper systematically investigates the advantages and challenges of LLMs for MMT. We thoroughly evaluate eight popular LLMs, including ChatGPT and GPT-4.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-10T15:51:30Z)
• Validating Large Language Models with ReLM [11.552979853457117]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been touted for their ability to generate natural-sounding text. There are growing concerns around possible negative effects of LLMs such as data memorization, bias, and inappropriate language. We introduce ReLM, a system for validating and querying LLMs using standard regular expressions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-21T21:40:35Z)

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.