Test Design and Review Argumentation in AI-Assisted Test Generation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.22473v1
• Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2026 11:51:46 GMT
• Title: Test Design and Review Argumentation in AI-Assisted Test Generation
• Abstract summary: We propose a conceptual taxonomy and a structured template for AI-assisted test generation.<n>It characterizes a test case by its test goal, claim, reason, and evidence.
• Score: 2.973572497882374
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: AI assistants can increasingly generate and evolve test cases. The challenge is no longer merely to produce them, but also to help engineers understand why a generated artefact exists and what supports it. Existing work has focused on classifying testing techniques, linking requirements to tests and structuring system assurance arguments, but it does not explicitly represent the argumentation behind individual test design decisions. We propose a conceptual taxonomy and a structured template for AI-assisted test generation that characterizes a test case by its test goal, claim, reason, and evidence. The taxonomy is intended for both constructive use during test design and retrospective use during review, to assess the quality of the attached argument rather than the plausibility or objective value of the generated test cases.

Related papers

• TCS-BENCH: Benchmarking State-of-the-Art Generative AI Theoretical Computer Science Research Ability [59.079078796751496]
  We introduce TCS-Bench, a benchmark for evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) on research-level Theoretical Computer Science (TCS) proof generation.<n> TCS-Bench consists of theorem-proving tasks from papers published at top theoretical computer science venues.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-10T12:36:16Z)
• (Over)Reliance on Test Agents in AI-Assisted Software Testing [0.0]
  AI-based test agents promise to accelerate software testing by shortening feedback loops in continuous development.<n>To realize these benefits, engineers must still be able to assess if agent outputs are useful, valid, and reliable.<n>This paper argues that overreliance on AI in testing is both an agency problem, in which engineers may cede cognitive control over test design decisions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-20T13:23:49Z)
• EASE-TTT: Evidence-Aligned Selective Test-Time Training for Long-Context Question Answering [61.89411578705886]
  We propose Evidence-Aligned SElective Test-Time Training (EASE-TTT) for long-context question answering.<n>EASE-TTT converts selected evidence chunks into a soft attention supervision target over their token positions.<n>It achieves the strongest macro-average performance among full-context inference, retrieval-only baselines, and qTTT.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-05T04:49:37Z)
• VIBEPASS: Can Vibe Coders Really Pass the Vibe Check? [46.85901599242161]
  We evaluate two coupled tasks: emphFault-Triggering Test Generation (FT-Test) and emphFault-targeted Program Repair (FPR)<n>We find that fault-targeted reasoning does not scale with general coding ability.<n>Test-guided repair reveals a complementary insight: when self-generated tests successfully witness a fault, the resulting repair matches or outperforms repair guided by externally provided tests, but tests that fail to witness the fault actively degrade repair below unguided baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-16T21:14:28Z)
• TTCS: Test-Time Curriculum Synthesis for Self-Evolving [47.826209735956716]
  Test-Time Training offers a promising way to improve the reasoning ability of large language models.<n>We propose TTCS, a co-evolving test-time training framework.<n>We show that TTCS consistently strengthens the reasoning ability on challenging mathematical benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-30T06:38:02Z)
• Automatically Generating Single-Responsibility Unit Tests [0.0]
  I aim to investigate the effects of providing a pre-process structure to the generated tests.<n>We propose to implement different test representations for evolution and evaluate their impact on coverage, fault detection, and understandability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-08T21:05:04Z)
• Scoring Verifiers: Evaluating Synthetic Verification for Code and Reasoning [59.25951947621526]
  We propose an approach which can transform existing coding benchmarks into scoring and ranking datasets to evaluate the effectiveness of synthetic verifiers.<n>We release four new benchmarks (HE-R, HE-R+, MBPP-R, and MBPP-R+), and analyzed synthetic verification methods with standard, reasoning-based, and reward-based LLMs.<n>Our experiments show that reasoning can significantly improve test case generation and that scaling the number of test cases enhances the verification accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-19T15:32:11Z)
• StructTest: Benchmarking LLMs' Reasoning through Compositional Structured Outputs [78.84060166851805]
  StructTest is a novel benchmark that evaluates large language models (LLMs) on their ability to follow compositional instructions and generate structured outputs.<n> Assessments are conducted deterministically using a rule-based evaluator, which can be easily extended to new tasks and datasets.<n>We demonstrate that StructTest remains challenging even for top-performing models like Deepseek-V3/R1 and GPT-4o.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-23T22:08:40Z)
• System Test Case Design from Requirements Specifications: Insights and Challenges of Using ChatGPT [1.9282110216621835]
  This paper explores the effectiveness of using Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate test case designs from Software Requirements Specification (SRS) documents.<n>About 87 percent of the generated test cases were valid, with the remaining 13 percent either not applicable or redundant.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-04T20:12:27Z)
• Context-Aware Testing: A New Paradigm for Model Testing with Large Language Models [49.06068319380296]
  We introduce context-aware testing (CAT) which uses context as an inductive bias to guide the search for meaningful model failures. We instantiate the first CAT system, SMART Testing, which employs large language models to hypothesize relevant and likely failures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-31T15:06:16Z)
• Leveraging Large Language Models for Enhancing the Understandability of Generated Unit Tests [4.574205608859157]
  We introduce UTGen, which combines search-based software testing and large language models to enhance the understandability of automatically generated test cases. We observe that participants working on assignments with UTGen test cases fix up to 33% more bugs and use up to 20% less time when compared to baseline test cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-21T15:35:34Z)
• 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)
• A New Score for Adaptive Tests in Bayesian and Credal Networks [64.80185026979883]
  A test is adaptive when its sequence and number of questions is dynamically tuned on the basis of the estimated skills of the taker. We present an alternative family of scores, based on the mode of the posterior probabilities, and hence easier to explain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-25T20:35:42Z)

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.