Do Coverage and Mutation Scores of LLM-Generated Test Suites Correlate with Their Effectiveness? (Replicability Study)

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.22880v1
• Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2026 19:46:30 GMT
• Title: Do Coverage and Mutation Scores of LLM-Generated Test Suites Correlate with Their Effectiveness? (Replicability Study)
• Abstract summary: Studies show that correlations among coverage, mutation, and real-bug detection can largely vanish once test suite size is controlled.<n>We show that the usefulness of coverage and mutation is highly context-dependent.<n>We also find little evidence that test suite size is a dominant confounder for correlations among coverage, mutation, and real-bug detection.
• Score: 6.228248513679207
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have driven growing interest in using LLMs to automate test generation. Prior work commonly evaluates generated test suites using proxy metrics such as code coverage and mutation score. However, studies by Inozemtseva et al. and Papadakis et al. show that, for human-written tests, correlations among coverage, mutation, and real-bug detection can largely vanish once test suite size is controlled, raising concerns about the validity of evaluations based on proxy metrics. It also remains unclear whether these conclusions carry over to LLM-generated tests, given that prevailing LLM-based test-generation workflows differ substantially from traditional approaches. In this paper, we conduct a large-scale replication study of these two prior works using a wide range of test suites generated by a diverse set of LLMs, and re-examine the relationships among coverage, mutation, and real-bug detection effectiveness. Our findings diverge substantially from prior results. We show that the usefulness of coverage and mutation is highly context-dependent: in regression-style settings where the code provided to the LLM can be reasonably assumed bug-free, these metrics can provide meaningful signals when comparing across models; in another common scenario where the code-under-test may already be buggy and the goal is to expose the bug within the code-under-test, they no longer serve as reliable indicators. We also find little evidence that test suite size is a dominant confounder for correlations among coverage, mutation, and real-bug detection for LLM-generated tests. Based on these findings, we discuss how to interpret results from prior studies and provide actionable guidance for evaluating LLM-based test generation.

Related papers

• Evaluating and Mitigating the Misguidance Effect of Buggy Code in LLM-Generated Unit Tests [6.228248513679207]
  This paper presents a new metric to measure the "misguidance effect," a phenomenon where buggy code steers LLMs toward generating tests that validate its erroneous behavior rather than expose it.<n>We introduce and validate a specification-based unit test generation paradigm that replaces the code under test in the prompt with an LLM-generated specification docstring.<n>Our results show that this paradigm effectively reduces misguided tests while substantially increasing effective tests, improves multi-round, feedback-driven test generation pipelines, and remains applicable to both buggy and bug-free code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-24T19:47:41Z)
• Code-A1: Adversarial Evolving of Code LLM and Test LLM via Reinforcement Learning [54.95476453942411]
  Reinforcement learning for code generation relies on verifiable rewards from unit test pass rates.<n>Recent self-play methods unify code and test generation in a single model.<n>Code-A1 achieves code generation performance matching or exceeding models trained on human-annotated tests.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-16T17:58:13Z)
• CompassVerifier: A Unified and Robust Verifier for LLMs Evaluation and Outcome Reward [50.97588334916863]
  We develop CompassVerifier, an accurate and robust lightweight verifier model for evaluation and outcome reward.<n>It demonstrates multi-domain competency spanning math, knowledge, and diverse reasoning tasks, with the capability to process various answer types.<n>We introduce VerifierBench benchmark comprising model outputs collected from multiple data sources, augmented through manual analysis of metaerror patterns to enhance CompassVerifier.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-05T17:55:24Z)
• Mutation Testing via Iterative Large Language Model-Driven Scientific Debugging [10.334617290353192]
  We evaluate whether Scientific computation can help Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate tests for mutants.<n>LLMs consistently outperform Pynguin in generating tests with better fault detection and coverage.<n> Importantly, we observe that the iterative refinement of test cases is important for achieving high-quality test suites.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-11T08:47:13Z)
• Toward Automated Validation of Language Model Synthesized Test Cases using Semantic Entropy [0.5057850174013127]
  Modern Large Language Model (LLM)-based programming agents often rely on test execution feedback to refine their generated code.<n>This paper introduces VALTEST, a novel framework that leverages semantic entropy to automatically validate test cases generated by LLMs.<n>Experiments show that VALTEST boosts test validity by up to 29% and improves code generation performance, as evidenced by significant increases in pass@1 scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-13T00:07:32Z)
• Test smells in LLM-Generated Unit Tests [16.061139428298986]
  This paper presents the first multi-benchmark, large-scale analysis of test smell diffusion in LLM-generated unit tests.<n>Our study draws on 20,505 class-level suites from four LLMs (GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Mistral 7B, Mixtral 8x7B), 972 method-level cases from TestBench, 14,469 EvoSuite tests, and 779,585 human-written tests from 34,635 open-source Java projects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T15:35:44Z)
• DARG: Dynamic Evaluation of Large Language Models via Adaptive Reasoning Graph [70.79413606968814]
  We introduce Dynamic Evaluation of LLMs via Adaptive Reasoning Graph Evolvement (DARG) to dynamically extend current benchmarks with controlled complexity and diversity. Specifically, we first extract the reasoning graphs of data points in current benchmarks and then perturb the reasoning graphs to generate novel testing data. Such newly generated test samples can have different levels of complexity while maintaining linguistic diversity similar to the original benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-25T04:27:53Z)
• Self-Evaluation Improves Selective Generation in Large Language Models [54.003992911447696]
  We reformulate open-ended generation tasks into token-level prediction tasks. We instruct an LLM to self-evaluate its answers. We benchmark a range of scoring methods based on self-evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-14T19:09:22Z)
• ReEval: Automatic Hallucination Evaluation for Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models via Transferable Adversarial Attacks [91.55895047448249]
  This paper presents ReEval, an LLM-based framework using prompt chaining to perturb the original evidence for generating new test cases. We implement ReEval using ChatGPT and evaluate the resulting variants of two popular open-domain QA datasets. Our generated data is human-readable and useful to trigger hallucination in large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-19T06:37:32Z)
• FactCHD: Benchmarking Fact-Conflicting Hallucination Detection [64.4610684475899]
  FactCHD is a benchmark designed for the detection of fact-conflicting hallucinations from LLMs. FactCHD features a diverse dataset that spans various factuality patterns, including vanilla, multi-hop, comparison, and set operation. We introduce Truth-Triangulator that synthesizes reflective considerations by tool-enhanced ChatGPT and LoRA-tuning based on Llama2.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T16:27:49Z)
• Effective Test Generation Using Pre-trained Large Language Models and Mutation Testing [13.743062498008555]
  We introduce MuTAP for improving the effectiveness of test cases generated by Large Language Models (LLMs) in terms of revealing bugs. MuTAP is capable of generating effective test cases in the absence of natural language descriptions of the Program Under Test (PUTs) Our results show that our proposed method is able to detect up to 28% more faulty human-written code snippets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-31T08:48:31Z)
• LLMs as Factual Reasoners: Insights from Existing Benchmarks and Beyond [135.8013388183257]
  We propose a new protocol for inconsistency detection benchmark creation and implement it in a 10-domain benchmark called SummEdits. Most LLMs struggle on SummEdits, with performance close to random chance. The best-performing model, GPT-4, is still 8% below estimated human performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T21:50:06Z)

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.