Can We Classify Flaky Tests Using Only Test Code? An LLM-Based Empirical Study

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.05465v1
• Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2026 09:15:09 GMT
• Title: Can We Classify Flaky Tests Using Only Test Code? An LLM-Based Empirical Study
• Authors: Alexander Berndt, Vekil Bekmyradov, Rainer Gemulla, Marcus Kessel, Thomas Bach, Sebastian Baltes,
• Abstract summary: Flaky tests yield inconsistent results when they are repeatedly executed on the same code revision.<n>Previous work evaluated approaches to train machine learning models to classify flaky tests based on identifiers in the test code.
• Score: 40.93176986225226
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Flaky tests yield inconsistent results when they are repeatedly executed on the same code revision. They interfere with automated quality assurance of code changes and hinder efficient software testing. Previous work evaluated approaches to train machine learning models to classify flaky tests based on identifiers in the test code. However, the resulting classifiers have been shown to lack generalizability, hindering their applicability in practical environments. Recently, pre-trained Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown the capability to generalize across various tasks. Thus, they represent a promising approach to address the generalizability problem of previous approaches. In this study, we evaluated three LLMs (two general-purpose models, one code-specific model) using three prompting techniques on two benchmark datasets from prior studies on flaky test classification. Furthermore, we manually investigated 50 samples from the given datasets to determine whether classifying flaky tests based only on test code is feasible for humans. Our findings indicate that LLMs struggle to classify flaky tests given only the test code. The results of our best prompt-model combination were only marginally better than random guessing. In our manual analysis, we found that the test code does not necessarily contain sufficient information for a flakiness classification. Our findings motivate future work to evaluate LLMs for flakiness classification with additional context, for example, using retrieval-augmented generation or agentic AI.

Related papers

• Mutation Testing via Iterative Large Language Model-Driven Scientific Debugging [10.334617290353192]
  We evaluate whether Scientific computation can help Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate tests for mutants.<n>LLMs consistently outperform Pynguin in generating tests with better fault detection and coverage.<n> Importantly, we observe that the iterative refinement of test cases is important for achieving high-quality test suites.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-11T08:47:13Z)
• Learning to Solve and Verify: A Self-Play Framework for Code and Test Generation [69.62857948698436]
  Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have improved their performance on coding benchmarks.<n>However, improvement is plateauing due to the exhaustion of readily available high-quality data.<n>We propose Sol-Ver, a self-play solver-verifier framework that jointly improves a single model's code and test generation capacity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-20T18:32:19Z)
• 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.<n>Our method is able to work under gray-box conditions without access to model training data or weights.<n>We evaluate the degree of data leakage of 35 mainstream open-source LLMs on four benchmark datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-03T11:09:44Z)
• 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)
• Deep anytime-valid hypothesis testing [29.273915933729057]
  We propose a general framework for constructing powerful, sequential hypothesis tests for nonparametric testing problems. We develop a principled approach of leveraging the representation capability of machine learning models within the testing-by-betting framework. Empirical results on synthetic and real-world datasets demonstrate that tests instantiated using our general framework are competitive against specialized baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T09:46:19Z)
• Position: AI Evaluation Should Learn from How We Test Humans [65.36614996495983]
  We argue that psychometrics, a theory originating in the 20th century for human assessment, could be a powerful solution to the challenges in today's AI evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-18T09:54:33Z)
• On the use of test smells for prediction of flaky tests [0.0]
  flaky tests hamper the evaluation of test results and can increase costs. Existing approaches based on the use of the test case vocabulary may be context-sensitive and prone to overfitting. We investigate the use of test smells as predictors of flaky tests.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-08-26T13:21:55Z)
• TestRank: Bringing Order into Unlabeled Test Instances for Deep Learning Tasks [14.547623982073475]
  Deep learning systems are notoriously difficult to test and debug. It is essential to conduct test selection and label only those selected "high quality" bug-revealing test inputs for test cost reduction. We propose a novel test prioritization technique that brings order into the unlabeled test instances according to their bug-revealing capabilities, namely TestRank.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-21T03:41:10Z)
• What is the Vocabulary of Flaky Tests? An Extended Replication [0.0]
  We conduct an empirical study to assess the use of code identifiers to predict test flakiness. We validated the performance of trained models using datasets with other flaky tests and from different projects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-23T16:42:22Z)
• Understanding Classifier Mistakes with Generative Models [88.20470690631372]
  Deep neural networks are effective on supervised learning tasks, but have been shown to be brittle. In this paper, we leverage generative models to identify and characterize instances where classifiers fail to generalize. Our approach is agnostic to class labels from the training set which makes it applicable to models trained in a semi-supervised way.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-05T22:13:21Z)
• 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.