(Over)Reliance on Test Agents in AI-Assisted Software Testing

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.17927v1
• Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2026 13:23:49 GMT
• Title: (Over)Reliance on Test Agents in AI-Assisted Software Testing
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: AI-based test agents promise to accelerate software testing by shortening feedback loops in continuous development and improving scalability and maintainability. To realize these benefits, engineers must still be able to assess if agent outputs are useful, valid, and reliable, rather than treating them as credible because they come from a capable system. 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, and an assurance problem, in which testing artifacts may be accepted as evidence without sufficient scrutiny. We develop this argument through three theoretical lenses: software testing as cognitive problem-solving, test agents as adaptively autonomous entities, and test design argumentation as a means of making generated tests reviewable. We propose a framework for collecting data on overreliance in test agent workflows and identify specific modes of overdependence. The goal is to support accelerated testing without weakening judgment or the assurance value of testing evidence.

Related papers

• The Meta-Agent Challenge: Are Current Agents Capable of Autonomous Agent Development? [80.24951682268332]
  We introduce the Meta-Agent Challenge (MAC), an evaluation framework designed to test the capacity of frontier models for autonomous agent development.<n>To ensure evaluation integrity, this framework is secured by multi-layer defenses against reward hacking.<n>We demonstrate that meta-agents rarely match human-engineered baseline policies, and the few that do are dominated by proprietary frontier models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-03T04:58:17Z)
• Can Coding Agents Reproduce Findings in Computational Materials Science? [49.254975563645786]
  We present AutoMat, a benchmark for evaluating large language models' ability to reproduce scientific claims.<n>By working closely with subject matter experts, we curate a set of claims from real materials science papers to test whether coding agents can recover and execute the end-to-end workflow.<n>Results show that current LLM-based agents obtain low overall success rates on AutoMat, with the best-performing setting achieving a success rate of only 54.1%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-01T17:42:12Z)
• Test Design and Review Argumentation in AI-Assisted Test Generation [2.973572497882374]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-24T11:51:46Z)
• 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)
• The Rise of Agentic Testing: Multi-Agent Systems for Robust Software Quality Assurance [0.0]
  Current AI-based test generators produce invalid, redundant, or non-executable tests due to lack of execution aware feedback.<n>This paper introduces a closed-loop, self-correcting system in which a Test Generation Agent, an Execution and Analysis Agent, and a Review and Optimization Agent collaboratively generate, execute, analyze, and refine tests.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-05T18:20:14Z)
• Impatient Users Confuse AI Agents: High-fidelity Simulations of Human Traits for Testing Agents [58.00130492861884]
  TraitBasis is a lightweight, model-agnostic method for systematically stress testing AI agents.<n>TraitBasis learns directions in activation space corresponding to steerable user traits.<n>We observe on average a 2%-30% performance degradation on $tau$-Trait across frontier models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-06T05:03:57Z)
• An Empirical Study of Testing Practices in Open Source AI Agent Frameworks and Agentic Applications [12.166151903597445]
  Foundation model (FM)-based AI agents are rapidly gaining adoption across diverse domains.<n>Their inherent non-determinism and non-reproducibility pose testing and quality assurance challenges.<n>We conduct the first large-scale empirical study of testing practices in the AI agent ecosystem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-23T16:02:09Z)
• Breaking Barriers in Software Testing: The Power of AI-Driven Automation [0.0]
  This paper presents an AI-driven framework that automates test case generation and validation using natural language processing (NLP), reinforcement learning (RL), and predictive models, embedded within a policy-driven trust and fairness model.<n>Case studies demonstrate measurable gains in defect detection, reduced testing effort, and faster release cycles, showing that AI-enhanced testing improves both efficiency and reliability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-22T01:04:50Z)
• Cognitive Kernel-Pro: A Framework for Deep Research Agents and Agent Foundation Models Training [67.895981259683]
  General AI Agents are increasingly recognized as foundational frameworks for the next generation of artificial intelligence.<n>Current agent systems are either closed-source or heavily reliant on a variety of paid APIs and proprietary tools.<n>We present Cognitive Kernel-Pro, a fully open-source and (to the maximum extent) free multi-module agent framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-01T08:11:31Z)
• TestAgent: An Adaptive and Intelligent Expert for Human Assessment [62.060118490577366]
  We propose TestAgent, a large language model (LLM)-powered agent designed to enhance adaptive testing through interactive engagement.<n>TestAgent supports personalized question selection, captures test-takers' responses and anomalies, and provides precise outcomes through dynamic, conversational interactions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-03T16:07:54Z)
• The Future of Software Testing: AI-Powered Test Case Generation and Validation [0.0]
  This paper explores the transformative potential of AI in improving test case generation and validation.<n>It focuses on its ability to enhance efficiency, accuracy, and scalability in testing processes.<n>It also addresses key challenges associated with adapting AI for testing, including the need for high quality training data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-09T17:12:40Z)
• 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)

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.