TestEvo-Bench: An Executable and Live Benchmark for Test and Code Co-Evolution

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.02469v1
• Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2026 17:35:20 GMT
• Title: TestEvo-Bench: An Executable and Live Benchmark for Test and Code Co-Evolution
• Abstract summary: TestEvo-Bench is a benchmark of test and code co-evolution tasks mined from software repositories.<n>Each task is anchored to a real commit history and packaged with environment configuration.<n>Current snapshot contains 746 test generation and 509 test update tasks.
• Score: 3.048952775453716
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Software tests and code evolve together: a code change should be followed by new or updated tests that record the new software behavior. Yet existing test generation and update benchmarks often isolate the test from the code change, and rely on static metadata that does not verify whether a test is executable or semantically tied to the code change. This makes it difficult to evaluate whether a test automation agent understands how a code change should propagate into the test suite. We introduce TestEvo-Bench, a benchmark of test and code co-evolution tasks mined from software repositories, with two tracks: in test generation, the agent shall write new tests to capture the new software behavior; in test update, the agent shall adapt failing existing tests to the changed software behavior. Each task is anchored to a real commit history and packaged with environment configuration to support execution-grounded metrics such as pass rate, coverage, and mutation score. TestEvo-Bench is also a live benchmark: each task records the timestamp of the test and code changes, and new tasks are periodically mined by our automated pipeline, so evaluation can be restricted to tasks postdating a model's training cutoff to reduce data leakage risk. The current snapshot contains 746 test generation and 509 test update tasks, curated from 59,950 candidate co-evolution records across 152 open-source Java projects. We experiment with four state-of-the-art agents that combine strong harnesses (Claude Code, Gemini CLI, and SWE-Agent) with strong foundation models (Claude Opus 4.7 and Gemini 3.1 Pro). Results show that they achieve up to 77.5% success rate on test generation and 74.6% on test update. However, success rate is materially lower on the most recent benchmark tasks and drops significantly under limited per-task cost.

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)
• TTHE: Test-Time Harness Evolution [50.26245555541721]
  Existing approaches optimize such harnesses before deployment, searching training or development data for a fixed agent workflow that is then frozen at test time.<n>We ask whether the harness can instead be optimized during evaluation itself, using only the unlabeled execution traces the agent produces on the test inputs.<n>During evaluation, TTHE maintains a population of candidate harnesses and refines them through an agentic proposer that reasons over their execution traces.<n>A judge then commits an improved harness from execution-derived proxy signals, and the selected program persists to govern subsequent inputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-09T05:53:39Z)
• Breaking, Stale, or Missing? Benchmarking Coding Agents on Project-Level Test Evolution [20.606877071567958]
  We present TEBench, the first project-level benchmark for test evolution.<n>We construct TEBench through a four-stage pipeline over Defects4J projects.<n>We evaluate seven configurations spanning three industrial agent frameworks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-07T12:31:09Z)
• ClawMark: A Living-World Benchmark for Multi-Turn, Multi-Day, Multimodal Coworker Agents [77.22389710754452]
  We introduce bench, a benchmark for coworker agents built around multi-turn multi-day tasks.<n>The current release contains 100 tasks across 13 professional scenarios, executed against five stateful sandboxed services.<n>The strongest model reaches 75.8 weighted score, but the best strict Task Success is only 20.0%, indicating that partial progress is common.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-26T16:05:02Z)
• Are Benchmark Tests Strong Enough? Mutation-Guided Diagnosis and Augmentation of Regression Suites [49.16055123488827]
  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%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-02T01:13:40Z)
• 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)
• EvoTest: Evolutionary Test-Time Learning for Self-Improving Agentic Systems [59.66823584073748]
  A fundamental limitation of current AI agents is their inability to learn complex skills on the fly at test time.<n>We present EvoTest, an evolutionary test-time learning framework that improves an agent without any fine-tuning or gradients-by evolving the entire agentic system after every episode.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-15T07:16:28Z)
• Targeted Test Selection Approach in Continuous Integration [34.139736599165566]
  Targeted Test Selection (T-TS) is a machine learning approach for industrial test selection.<n>On live industrial data, T-TS selects only 15% of tests, reduces execution time by $5.9times$, accelerates the pipeline by $5.6times$, and detects over 95% of test failures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-12T14:20:51Z)
• TestGenEval: A Real World Unit Test Generation and Test Completion Benchmark [24.14654309612826]
  TestGenEval comprises 68,647 tests from 1,210 code and test file pairs across 11 well-maintained Python repositories.<n>It covers initial tests authoring, test suite completion, and code coverage improvements.<n>We evaluate several popular models, with sizes ranging from 7B to 405B parameters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-01T14:47:05Z)
• 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)
• Taming Timeout Flakiness: An Empirical Study of SAP HANA [47.29324864511411]
  Flaky tests negatively affect regression testing because they result in test failures that are not necessarily caused by code changes. Test timeouts are one contributing factor to such flaky test failures. Test flakiness rate ranges from 49% to 70%, depending on the number of repeated test executions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-07T20:01:41Z)

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.