Understanding Bug-Reproducing Tests: A First Empirical Study

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.02965v1
• Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2026 01:04:18 GMT
• Title: Understanding Bug-Reproducing Tests: A First Empirical Study
• Authors: Andre Hora, Gordon Fraser,
• Abstract summary: We analyze 642 bug-reproducing tests of 15 real-world Python systems.<n>We find that bug-reproducing tests are not (statistically significantly) different from other tests regarding LOC, number of assertions, and complexity.<n>We detect that the majority 95% of the bug-reproducing tests reproduce a single bug, while 5% reproduce multiple bugs.
• Score: 10.004295333072948
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Developers create bug-reproducing tests that support debugging by failing as long as the bug is present, and passing once the bug has been fixed. These tests are usually integrated into existing test suites and executed regularly alongside all other tests to ensure that future regressions are caught. Despite this co-existence with other types of tests, the properties of bug-reproducing tests are scarcely researched, and it remains unclear whether they differ fundamentally. In this short paper, we provide an initial empirical study to understand bug-reproducing tests better. We analyze 642 bug-reproducing tests of 15 real-world Python systems. Overall, we find that bug-reproducing tests are not (statistically significantly) different from other tests regarding LOC, number of assertions, and complexity. However, bug-reproducing tests contain slightly more try/except blocks and ``weak assertions'' (e.g.,~\texttt{assertNotEqual}). Lastly, we detect that the majority (95%) of the bug-reproducing tests reproduce a single bug, while 5% reproduce multiple bugs. We conclude by discussing implications and future research directions.

Related papers

• BugPilot: Complex Bug Generation for Efficient Learning of SWE Skills [59.003563837981886]
  High quality bugs are key to training the next generation of language model based software engineering (SWE) agents.<n>We introduce a novel method for synthetic generation of difficult and diverse bugs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-22T17:58:56Z)
• Agentic Property-Based Testing: Finding Bugs Across the Python Ecosystem [34.68658860352019]
  Property-based testing (PBT) is a lightweight formal method, typically implemented as a randomized testing framework.<n>In this work, we demonstrate an LLM-based agent which analyzes Python modules, infers function-specific and cross-function properties from code and documentation, synthesizes and executes PBTs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-10T22:43:54Z)
• AssertFlip: Reproducing Bugs via Inversion of LLM-Generated Passing Tests [0.7564784873669823]
  We introduce AssertFlip, a technique for automatically generating Bug Reproducible Tests (BRTs) using large language models (LLMs)<n>AssertFlip first generates passing tests on the buggy behaviour and then inverts these tests to fail when the bug is present.<n>Our results show that AssertFlip outperforms all known techniques in the leaderboard of SWT-Bench, a benchmark curated for BRTs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-23T14:19:55Z)
• Studying the Impact of Early Test Termination Due to Assertion Failure on Code Coverage and Spectrum-based Fault Localization [48.22524837906857]
  This study is the first empirical study on early test termination due to assertion failure.<n>We investigated 207 versions of 6 open-source projects.<n>Our findings indicate that early test termination harms both code coverage and the effectiveness of spectrum-based fault localization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-06T17:14:09Z)
• Do Test and Environmental Complexity Increase Flakiness? An Empirical Study of SAP HANA [47.29324864511411]
  Flaky tests fail seemingly at random without changes to the code. We study characteristics of tests and the test environment that potentially impact test flakiness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-16T07:52:09Z)
• 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)
• Observation-based unit test generation at Meta [52.4716552057909]
  TestGen automatically generates unit tests, carved from serialized observations of complex objects, observed during app execution. TestGen has landed 518 tests into production, which have been executed 9,617,349 times in continuous integration, finding 5,702 faults. Our evaluation reveals that, when carving its observations from 4,361 reliable end-to-end tests, TestGen was able to generate tests for at least 86% of the classes covered by end-to-end tests.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-09T00:34:39Z)
• Automatic Generation of Test Cases based on Bug Reports: a Feasibility Study with Large Language Models [4.318319522015101]
  Existing approaches produce test cases that either can be qualified as simple (e.g. unit tests) or that require precise specifications. Most testing procedures still rely on test cases written by humans to form test suites. We investigate the feasibility of performing this generation by leveraging large language models (LLMs) and using bug reports as inputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-10T05:30:12Z)
• 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)
• DeepDebug: Fixing Python Bugs Using Stack Traces, Backtranslation, and Code Skeletons [5.564793925574796]
  We present an approach to automated debug using large, pretrained transformers. We start by training a bug-creation model on reversed commit data for the purpose of generating synthetic bugs. Next, we focus on 10K repositories for which we can execute tests, and create buggy versions of all functions that are covered by passing tests.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-19T18:40:16Z)
• 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.