Fail-Aware and Explainable Test Oracle Prediction

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.11342v1
• Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2026 10:04:36 GMT
• Title: Fail-Aware and Explainable Test Oracle Prediction
• Abstract summary: We present FOCAL, an emerging code LLM-based discriminative oracle predictor.<n>It learns from labeled pairs of test prefixes and methods under test, employs losses that emphasize failing cases during training, and grounds its predictions in statement level behavioral evidence.<n>Compared with the baseline method SEER, we substantially improve performance on failing cases for unseen projects.
• Score: 4.6927139685668315
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Despite their central role in fault detection, test oracles remain challenging to construct effectively. Recent learning based methods address this challenge by automatically generating test assertions, yet even if syntactically correct, they are often ineffective in revealing bugs. Rather than generating assertions, this study explores a different approach by training a model to directly predict whether a given test prefix passes or fails. We present FOCAL, an emerging code LLM-based discriminative oracle predictor. It learns from labeled pairs of test prefixes and methods under test, employs losses that emphasize failing cases during training, and grounds its predictions in statement level behavioral evidence. Compared with the baseline method SEER, we substantially improve performance on failing cases for unseen projects and provide richer explanations. A preliminary evaluation on fault-detection benchmarks and automated test-generation artifacts shows that our approach is highly accurate within its training distribution and substantially improves failure detection on previously unseen projects where prior discriminative oracles collapse. Moreover, the highlighted statements are supported by behavioral explanation checks. These early results suggest that fail-aware discriminative oracle prediction can complement existing approaches such as fuzzing, search-based testing, and LLM-based test generation. These techniques produce test prefixes at scale but often lack fault oriented oracles. In future work, FOCAL could take generated test prefixes and attach fault-aware predicted oracles to them, turning high-volume input generation into executable tests that are more likely to expose semantic failures.

Related papers

• How effective are traditional test criteria at detecting bugs in large language models generated code? [5.2762490553598065]
  Most faults introduced by Large Language Models are relatively trivial to catch.<n>Fault detection rates remain extremely low, often near zero.<n> prompt-aware oracles can improve fault detection, but their overall effectiveness remains limited.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-08T18:04:21Z)
• On the risk of coding before testing: An empirical study on LLM-based test generation workflow [5.317864735982288]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in software engineering to generate both source code and test suites.<n>We study the phenomenon of error propagation, where faults in generated code are systematically replicated in associated test artifacts.<n>Our study examines (i) whether erroneous code artifacts bias test generation, (ii) whether such bias persists under different prompting strategies, and (iii) how errors propagate across multi-step validating.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-06T14:23:30Z)
• LiveFMBench: Unveiling the Power and Limits of Agentic Workflows in Specification Generation [75.05397479715576]
  Large language models (LLMs) and agents have shown promising progress, but their true capabilities and failure modes remain unclear.<n>We present the first systematic and contamination-aware study of LLM- and agent-based formal specification generation for C programs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-02T11:31:33Z)
• How LLMs Fail and Generalize in RTL Coding for Hardware Design? [56.361436215029045]
  We introduce a new error taxonomy grounded in problem solvability, inspired by cognitive theory.<n>Our taxonomy categorizes failures into syntactic, semantic, solvable functional, and unsolvable functional types.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-26T14:34:49Z)
• 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)
• ProbeLLM: Automating Principled Diagnosis of LLM Failures [89.44131968886184]
  We propose ProbeLLM, a benchmark-agnostic automated probing framework that elevates weakness discovery from individual failures to structured failure modes.<n>By restricting probing to verifiable test cases and leveraging tool-augmented generation and verification, ProbeLLM grounds failure discovery in reliable evidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-13T14:33:13Z)
• Towards Automated Error Discovery: A Study in Conversational AI [48.735443116662026]
  We introduce Automated Error Discovery, a framework for detecting and defining errors in conversational AI.<n>We also propose SEEED (Soft Clustering Extended-Based Error Detection), as an encoder-based approach to its implementation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-13T14:53:22Z)
• Large-scale, Independent and Comprehensive study of the power of LLMs for test case generation [11.517293765116307]
  Unit testing is essential for software reliability, yet manual test creation is time-consuming and often neglected.<n>This study presents the first large-scale empirical evaluation of LLM-generated unit tests at the class level.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-28T20:38:41Z)
• Test Oracle Automation in the era of LLMs [52.69509240442899]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable proficiency in tackling diverse software testing tasks. This paper aims to enable discussions on the potential of using LLMs for test oracle automation, along with the challenges that may emerge during the generation of various types of oracles.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-21T13:19:10Z)
• Test Generation Strategies for Building Failure Models and Explaining Spurious Failures [4.995172162560306]
  Test inputs fail not only when the system under test is faulty but also when the inputs are invalid or unrealistic. We propose to build failure models for inferring interpretable rules on test inputs that cause spurious failures. We show that our proposed surrogate-assisted approach generates failure models with an average accuracy of 83%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-09T18:36:15Z)
• 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)
• 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)

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.