Are Benchmark Tests Strong Enough? Mutation-Guided Diagnosis and Augmentation of Regression Suites

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.01518v1
• Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2026 01:13:40 GMT
• Title: Are Benchmark Tests Strong Enough? Mutation-Guided Diagnosis and Augmentation of Regression Suites
• Abstract summary: Insufficiently strong test suites can admit plausible yet semantically incorrect patches, inflating reported success rates.<n>We introduce STING, a framework for targeted test augmentation that uses semantically altered program variants as diagnostic stressors.<n>STING produces 1,014 validated tests spanning 211 instances and increases patch-region line and branch coverage by 10.8% and 9.5%.
• Score: 49.16055123488827
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Benchmarks driven by test suites, notably SWE-bench, have become the de facto standard for measuring the effectiveness of automated issue-resolution agents: a generated patch is accepted whenever it passes the accompanying regression tests. In practice, however, insufficiently strong test suites can admit plausible yet semantically incorrect patches, inflating reported success rates. We introduce STING, a framework for targeted test augmentation that uses semantically altered program variants as diagnostic stressors to uncover and repair weaknesses in benchmark regression suites. Variants of the ground-truth patch that still pass the existing tests reveal under-constrained behaviors; these gaps then guide the generation of focused regression tests. A generated test is retained only if it (i) passes on the ground-truth patch, (ii) fails on at least one variant that survived the original suite, and (iii) remains valid under behavior-preserving transformations designed to guard against overfitting. Applied to SWE-bench Verified, STING finds that 77% of instances contain at least one surviving variant. STING produces 1,014 validated tests spanning 211 instances and increases patch-region line and branch coverage by 10.8% and 9.5%, respectively. Re-assessing the top-10 repair agents with the strengthened suites lowers their resolved rates by 4.2%-9.0%, revealing that a substantial share of previously passing patches exploit weaknesses in the benchmark tests rather than faithfully implementing the intended fix. These results underscore that reliable benchmark evaluation depends not only on patch generation, but equally on test adequacy.

Related papers

• ExecCritic: Learn to Test, Test to Improve for Coding Agents [68.42713285082912]
  Execution feedback can guide coding agents toward correct repository repairs, but only when the tests capture the behavior requested by the issue.<n>We introduce ExecCritic, combining a test--verify--revise scaffold with a role-specific reinforcement learning recipe for training agents within it.<n>The scaffold separates test construction from source-code repair: a Test agent independently generates repository-native tests, a fail-closed harness qualifies and freezes them, and a Repair agent revises source code from their execution feedback without changing the tests.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-08T17:53:37Z)
• Beyond Fail-to-Pass: Iterative Hardening of Co-Generated Bug Reproduction Tests and Fixes [55.114939648705395]
  Large language models (LLMs) have made automated program repair increasingly practical for real-world bugs.<n>Bug reproduction tests (BRTs) help close this gap by turning a bug report into an executable, bug-specific signal.<n>We propose CoHarden, a co-generation framework that uses the Lax signal as an in-loop convergence criterion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-22T07:30:07Z)
• Evaluating LLM-Based Test Generation Under Software Evolution [7.140756378584939]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for automated unit test generation.<n>We present a large-scale empirical study of LLM-based test generation under program changes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-24T17:14:18Z)
• Historian: Reducing Manual Validation in APR Benchmarking via Evidence-Based Assessment [0.19853810231896352]
  We present Historian, a framework that leverages Large Language Models to perform multi-reference comparisons against a knowledge base of historically validated patches.<n>In leave-one-tool-out evaluation, Historian achieves 95.0% coverage with 88.4% accuracy, reducing manual validation to 5% of patches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-28T13:41:29Z)
• When Old Meets New: Evaluating the Impact of Regression Tests on SWE Issue Resolution [8.305144449617883]
  TestPrune is a fully automated technique that leverages issue tracker reports and strategically reuses regression tests for both bug reproduction and patch validation.<n>TestPrune can be plugged into any agentic bug repair pipeline and inflately improve overall performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-21T03:42:28Z)
• Unit Test Update through LLM-Driven Context Collection and Error-Type-Aware Refinement [5.8748750353007635]
  Test maintenance methods primarily focus on repairing broken tests, neglecting the scenario of enhancing existing tests to verify new functionality.<n>We propose TESTUPDATER, a novel approach that enables automated just-in-time test updates in response to production code changes.<n>TestUPDATER achieves a compilation pass rate of 94.4% and a test pass rate of 86.7%, outperforming the state-of-the-art method SYNTER by 15.9% and 20.0%, respectively.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T08:08:22Z)
• 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)
• Are "Solved Issues" in SWE-bench Really Solved Correctly? An Empirical Study [18.117047833029073]
  Most popular benchmarks for automated issue solving are SWE-bench and its human-filtered subset SWE-bench Verified.<n>This paper presents an in-depth empirical study of the correctness of plausible patches generated by three state-of-the-art issue-solving tools evaluated on SWE-bench Verified.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-19T14:02:21Z)
• Uncertainty-Calibrated Test-Time Model Adaptation without Forgetting [65.21599711087538]
  Test-time adaptation (TTA) seeks to tackle potential distribution shifts between training and test data by adapting a given model w.r.t. any test sample.<n>Prior methods perform backpropagation for each test sample, resulting in unbearable optimization costs to many applications.<n>We propose an Efficient Anti-Forgetting Test-Time Adaptation (EATA) method which develops an active sample selection criterion to identify reliable and non-redundant samples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-18T05:49:45Z)
• Towards Automatic Generation of Amplified Regression Test Oracles [44.45138073080198]
  We propose a test oracle derivation approach to amplify regression test oracles. The approach monitors the object state during test execution and compares it to the previous version to detect any changes in relation to the SUT's intended behaviour.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-28T12:38:44Z)
• Noisy Adaptive Group Testing using Bayesian Sequential Experimental Design [63.48989885374238]
  When the infection prevalence of a disease is low, Dorfman showed 80 years ago that testing groups of people can prove more efficient than testing people individually. Our goal in this paper is to propose new group testing algorithms that can operate in a noisy setting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-26T23:41:33Z)

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.