Automated Software Testing

As REST APIs become an increasingly significant part of software systems, their validation is becoming more critical. Hence, testing and uncovering underlying issues are of utmost importance for improving software quality. However, testing REST APIs is challenging mainly due to the difficulty of assessing whether the output of an API call is correct, i.e., the test oracle problem. Metamorphic testing is a specification-based testing approach for situations where correct outputs are unknown or not specified explicitly. To check the correctness of a system, relations between the different outputs are specified. We present ARMeta, a tool-supported approach that uses an LLM-based multi-agent workflow to support metamorphic testing of REST APIs documented with OpenAPI. The agentic workflow is used to identify metamorphic test scenarios and specify them in the Given-When-Then format. These scenarios are automatically implemented as executable tests and executed against the system under test. We evaluate ARMeta on two publicly available web applications that expose REST interfaces and compare its performance with a scenario-based testing baseline. The results show that ARMeta explores behaviors that serve as a complement to existing scenario-based testing approaches.

LLMs can now produce full HTML pages, but many of those pages are only superficially correct: they render once, then fail under scroll, hover, click, resize, or gameplay. Evaluation from screenshots can miss these failures, and filtering discards many pages that are still repairable. We introduce HTMLCure, a browser experience framework that evaluates HTML after the system has interacted with it. The evaluator executes the page across viewports and interaction states, records deterministic browser evidence, and gives the VLM curated keyframes from the executed trajectory rather than isolated screenshots. The same state signal drives a closed loop repair engine: HTMLCure diagnoses the current page, chooses a state specific repair family, runs each candidate again, and exports quality cleared pages for SFT. On a 97K prompt corpus, this expands the directly usable seed into a candidate pool of 63703 quality cleared pages, from which we construct the final refined SFT set of 40K pages. Under the same backbone and training recipe, HTMLCure-27B-Refined reaches 50.6 on HTMLBench-400 with 45.2% deterministic test case pass, placing it in the same performance band as strong reference rows such as Kimi-K2.6 and GPT-5.4. On the released MiniAppBench validation split, it reaches 81.2 average, improving raw 27B SFT by 15.3 points and approaching the level of strong reference systems.

In many industrial domains, the Functional Mock-up Interface (FMI) is used to exchange simulation models as Functional Mock-up Units (FMUs) across different partners using various modelling tools. This opens up the possibilities for simulation-based verification and validation using FMUs for ensuring reliable system behaviour. However, deriving effective test oracles for these simulation models remains challenging due to the absence of explicit expected outputs. This limits the applicability of conventional testing approaches, which require access to the internal workings of the systems. Metamorphic testing (MT) addresses this limitation by leveraging metamorphic relations (MRs), but extracting such relations from specifications remains largely a manual and error-prone process. To address this challenge, we propose an LLM-powered multi-agent workflow for specification-based metamorphic testing of FMU-based simulation models. The approach takes functional and interface specifications as input and orchestrates multiple agents to extract requirements and derive MRs. These MRs are expressed using Given-When-Then patterns to structure input conditions (Given), transformations (When), and expected output behaviours (Then). These relations are then used to generate metamorphic test cases, execute simulations, and evaluate output consistency across multiple sessions. We evaluate the approach on a Lube Oil Cooling system FMU, demonstrating its ability to automatically generate meaningful MRs and corresponding test cases. Preliminary results indicate that the proposed workflow can effectively support the systematic verification and validation of dynamic simulation models by reducing manual effort and improving test generation.

The widespread integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) necessitates rigorous and systematic safety evaluation. Existing paradigms either rely on constructed benchmarks to assess safety from predefined perspectives, or employ dynamic red-teaming to probe potential vulnerabilities. While effective, these approaches face challenges, as they depend heavily on expert domain knowledge, offer limited systematic guarantees, and are vulnerable to rapid obsolescence. To address these limitations, we introduce a novel framework POLARIS that brings the rigor of specification-based software testing to AI safety. POLARIS first compiles unstructured natural-language policies into First-Order Logic (FOL) representations, establishing a traceable link between high-level rules and concrete test cases. This formalization enables the construction of a Semantic Policy Graph, where complex policy violation scenarios are encoded as traversable paths. By systematically exploring this graph, POLARIS uncovers compositional violation patterns, which are then instantiated into executable natural-language test queries, enabling coverage-driven and reproducible safety testing. Experiments demonstrate that POLARIS achieves higher policy coverage and attack success counts compared to established baselines. Crucially, by bridging formal methods and AI safety, POLARIS provides a principled, automated approach to ensuring LLMs adhere to safety-critical policies with verifiable traceability. We release our code at https://github.com/huac-lxy/POLARIS.

Evaluating software engineering capabilities has become a core component of modern large language models (LLMs); however, the key bottleneck hindering further scaling lies not in the scarcity of high-quality solutions, but in the lack of high-quality test suites. Test suites are indispensable both for synthesizing program repair trajectories and for providing precise feedback signals in reinforcement learning. Unfortunately, due to the high cost and difficulty of annotation, high-quality test suites have long been hard to obtain, while those automatically generated by LLMs tend to be superficial and lack sufficient discriminative power. As a first step toward constructing high-quality test suites, we introduce SWE-Mutation, a benchmark for evaluating LLM-generated test suites. The benchmark characterizes test suites by introducing systematically mutated solutions that attempt to ``fool'' the test suites and pass validation. We further propose an agentic, language-agnostic framework for automatically generating complex mutants. Our benchmark consists of 2,636 mutated variants derived from 800 original instances and includes a multilingual subset spanning nine programming languages. Experiments on seven LLMs reveal that even DeepSeek-V3.1 achieves only 10.20% verification and 36.15% detection rates, highlighting the inadequacy of current LLMs. Additionally, our agentic mutation strategy enhances realism, reducing average detection rates from 71.04% to 39.81% compared to conventional methods. These findings expose persistent deficiencies in the ability of current LLMs to generate reliable and discriminative test suites.

Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly being explored for video game quality assurance, especially gameplay glitch detection. Most existing evaluations, however, treat glitches as static visual anomalies, asking models to detect failures from a single frame. We argue that this framing misses a key distinction: some glitches are spatial and visible in an isolated frame, whereas others are temporal and become evident only through changes across ordered frames. A preliminary study confirms this gap, showing that temporal glitches are substantially harder for VLMs to detect than spatial ones. To enable systematic evaluation of this underexplored setting, we introduce TempGlitch, a controlled gameplay video benchmark for temporal glitch detection. TempGlitch covers five temporal glitch types with balanced per-category samples, together with paired glitch-free videos that enable reliable binary evaluation. We evaluate 12 proprietary and open-weight VLMs across multiple frame-sampling settings. Our results show that current VLMs remain near chance on TempGlitch, often collapsing into either overly conservative behavior that misses most glitches or overly sensitive behavior that flags clean videos as glitchy. Moreover, denser frame sampling and larger model size do not reliably resolve these failures. TempGlitch provides a focused testbed for temporal reasoning, robust gameplay understanding, and automated glitch detection with VLMs. Code and data are available at the project website.

Visual Question Answering (VQA), as the representative multimodal task, serves as a key benchmark for evaluating the reasoning capabilities of Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs). However, existing evaluations largely rely on static datasets and accuracy-based metrics, which fail to capture robustness, consistency, and generalization. Inspired by Metamorphic Testing (MT), we propose Metamorphic Robustness Assessment (MetaRA), a testing framework that employs Metamorphic Relations (MRs) to systematically probe vulnerabilities in MLLM-based VQA systems. MetaRA generates controlled variations of image-question inputs based on specific MRs and evaluates models across diverse conditions. Applying MetaRA to multiple MLLM-based VQA models across different tasks reveals nuanced failure patterns, including sensitivity to linguistic perturbations, over-reliance on superficial visual cues, and deeper weaknesses in multimodal reasoning. Experimental results demonstrate that MetaRA provides richer diagnostic insights than conventional accuracy metrics, exposing failure modes that remain hidden under standard benchmarks. Overall, this work highlights the need for systematic robustness evaluation in VQA and positions metamorphic assessment as a scalable, model-agnostic approach toward trustworthy multimodal AI.

Context. Metamorphic Testing addresses the test-oracle problem in scientific computing, but classical Mutation Score operates on syntactic AST mutations and misses domain semantics. Objective. We propose the Semantic Mutation Score (SMS), built on five domain-semantic operators (Conservation Erosion, Operator Substitution, Hyperparameter, Trajectory Flip, Structural Injection). SMS degenerates almost everywhere to MS in a characterised limit, so any SMS-based conclusion remains consistent with prior mutation-testing literature in the classical regime. Method. A 12-PUT x 5-MP design over four single-output float-to-float classes (numeric, probabilistic, surrogate, machine-learning) is paired with a three-layer attribution classifier separating true semantic faults from tolerance, OOD, statistical, and artefact categories. A same-source / cross-source ablation under an identical prompt isolates the LLM-source-diversity contribution. LLM-generated mutants are compared against a default-configuration cosmic-ray syntactic pool at the AST-normalised level. Results. The pre-registered large-effect threshold for Cliff's delta is not met under the point-estimate criterion; the observed effect lies in the medium-effect range. Cross-source pooling under an identical prompt does not appreciably shift delta, indicating that LLM identity is not the lever within this design. AST-level overlap between LLM-generated and default cosmic-ray syntactic mutants is small; the Hyperparameter, Structural Injection, and Trajectory Flip classes are unreachable under default first-order syntactic configurations. Conclusion. SMS is a backward-compatible adequacy metric for domain-semantic metamorphic-relation sets in scientific computing. The first-order unreachability evidence is independent of the effect-size question.

Context. Metamorphic Testing is recognised in IEEE/ISO software-testing standards and increasingly recommended for AI systems, but its progress is bottlenecked by metamorphic relation (MR) identification: existing approaches (structured frameworks, mining and evolutionary pipelines, LLM-assisted methods, MetaPattern catalogues) share an inductive grounding that leaves three foundational questions open: origin, closure, and transferability. Objective. We propose a framework whose downstream step from program-induced operator algebra to MetaPattern set is mechanical and provable, while the upstream curation of the algebra is a stated empirical hypothesis with explicit scope precondition. Method. NOETHER is a two-layer framework. The upstream layer is an eight-block decomposition over recurrent mathematical structures (symmetry, order, self-adjoint, time-reversal, limit, qualitative-dynamics, method-comparison, relational equivalence). The downstream CONSTRUCT-MP algorithm produces a MetaPattern set with algebraic-closure (Theorem 1) and polynomial-time decidability (Theorem 2) guarantees. We test the framework on three operator-algebraic domains. Results. On Boltzmann reactor physics NOETHER systematises a prior inductive catalogue; on equivariant ML it derives executable MRs for rotation invariance, adjoint duality, and training-trajectory reversibility; on relational query optimisers it exercises the relational-equivalence block. The central falsifiable prediction (L*-blindness on homogeneity-preserving mutators) holds on the in-scope substrate. The absolute-completeness conjecture (Theorem 1') is falsified on PWR core diffusion via two pairwise-independent counterexamples that identify five Translate-extension dimensions. Conclusion. Induction is relocated from per-program MR sampling to a per-domain algebraic layer; the downstream step is deductive and mechanical.

Modern web test suites rot. A UI refactor breaks locators, a timing change causes race conditions, and within weeks developers abandon the suite entirely. This paper presents an AI-driven autonomous testing framework that addresses these failure modes through five integrated strategies - navigation reliability, context-aware selector generation, post-generation validation, smart wait injection, and failure learning - implemented over a containerised worker architecture that decouples orchestration from long-running browser execution. Evaluated across four production applications and 176 scenarios, the framework improves script generation success from 55% to 93%, achieves an 8x reduction in navigation failures, eliminates 80% of timing-related race conditions, and reduces test creation time by 75% compared to manual Selenium authoring. The framework extends naturally to security validation: testers describe attack scenarios in plain English - "try accessing another user's invoice" - which the agent converts to OWASP Top 10-aligned browser probes, detecting 85% of authentication bypass vulnerabilities and 95% of input validation flaws with false positive rates below 12%. Natural-language-driven security testing of this kind represents, to our knowledge, a novel contribution to the field.

Context. Behaviour-Driven Development (BDD) test suites accumulate duplicated step subsequences. Three published refactoring patterns are available (within-file Background, within-repo reusable-scenario invocation, cross-organisational shared higher-level step), but no prior work automates which recurring subsequences are worth extracting or which mechanism applies. Objective. Rank recurring step subsequences ("slices") by refactoring suitability (extraction-worthy), pre-map each to one of the three patterns, and quantify prevalence across the public BDD ecosystem. Method. Every contiguous L-step window (L in [2, 18]) in a 339-repository / 276-upstream-owner Gherkin corpus is keyed by paraphrase-robust cluster identifiers and counted under three scopes. SBERT / UMAP / HDBSCAN clustering recovers paraphrase-equivalent slices. Three authors label a stratified 200-slice pool against a written rubric. An XGBoost extraction-worthy classifier trained under 5-fold cross-validation is compared with a tuned rule baseline and two open-weight Large Language Model (LLM) judges. Results. The miner produces 5,382,249 slices collapsing to 692,020 recurring patterns. Three-author Fleiss' kappa = 0.56 (extraction-worthy) and 0.79 (mechanism). The classifier reaches out-of-fold F1 = 0.891 (95% CI [0.852, 0.927]), outperforming both the rule baseline (F1 = 0.836, p = 0.017) and the better LLM judge (F1 = 0.728, p = 1.5e-4). 75.0%, 59.5%, and 11.7% of scenarios carry a within-file Background, within-repo reusable-scenario, and cross-organisational shared-step candidate, respectively; the figures are stable under a sweep of the classifier decision threshold. Conclusion. Paraphrase-robust subscenario discovery yields a corpus-wide census of BDD refactoring candidates; pipeline, classifier predictions, labelled pool, and rubric are released under Apache-2.0.

Malformed, missing, or boundary-value inputs in microservice APIs can cascade across dependent services, threatening reliability. Robustness testing systematically exercises such inputs to expose server-side failures, but generating diverse, effective tests remains challenging. Large Language Models can generate such tests from API specifications; however, it is unknown whether different models and prompt strategies produce diverse failure sets or converge on the same failures. We report a controlled experiment applying 7 prompt strategies to 3 open-source LLMs (14B-70B parameters) targeting 2 architecturally distinct microservice systems: one Java monolingual (6 services, 9 failure modes) and one polyglot (27 services, 14 failure modes), yielding 38 valid runs and 663 generated tests. We find that prompt strategy explains more variation in diversity than model size: a Structured prompt collapses diversity entirely, while a single model varied across three prompt strategies achieves complete failure-mode coverage on one system, outperforming any multi-model ensemble under a fixed prompt. We introduce two strategies, Guided and GuidedFewShot, that embed a mutation taxonomy from prior robustness testing research as domain context. GuidedFewShot achieves the highest single-run coverage on both systems (5 of 9 and 8 of 14 failure modes) while maintaining low cross-model similarity. A key lesson is that taxonomy rules alone are insufficient: LLMs cannot distinguish key-absent from value-empty mutations without concrete examples. Findings replicate across both systems.

Existing code benchmarks measure whether an agent can produce any test that reproduces a known bug, or whether it can produce a patch that fixes a described issue. Neither isolates the distinct skill of property-based testing: deriving a semantic invariant from documentation, and then constructing an input-generation strategy precise enough to make a random search reveal the violation. We introduce PBT-Bench, a benchmark of 100 curated property-based testing problems across 40 real Python libraries. Each problem injects one or more semantic bugs (365 in total, mean 3.65 per problem) designed so that default-strategy random inputs almost never trigger them; the agent must read the library's documentation, identify the relevant invariant, and specify a Hypothesis @given strategy that concentrates mass in the trigger region. Bugs are stratified across three difficulty levels (L1-L3) spanning single-constraint boundary bugs to stateful, cross-function protocol violations. We evaluate eight contemporary LLMs under two prompting regimes (open-ended baseline vs. explicit Hypothesis scaffolding) for three independent runs per configuration. Bug recall under the PBT-guided prompt ranges from 42.1% to 83.4% across models; under the open-ended baseline, from 31.4% to 76.7%. Hypothesis scaffolding lifts mid-capability models by over 20 percentage points, but yields smaller gains for the strongest models, with two exceptions showing degradation, suggesting the structured prompt can interfere with certain model behaviours rather than complementing them. The hardest bugs prove model-specific: different architectures fail on different problems, leaving persistent gaps that no single model closes. We release the benchmark, harness, and full evaluation corpus to support downstream work on documentation-grounded semantic reasoning.

Automated game testing is important for verifying game functionality, but it remains a costly and time-consuming process. Manual testing often misses edge cases, and current automated methods struggle to provide full code coverage. Prior work has explored reinforcement learning (RL) for game testing, but without leveraging internal code signals such as the call stack. We present Code Aware Agent (CA2), which uses call stack information to learn effective testing strategies. The agent receives the current function call trace along with the game state and learns to reach specific target functions. We instrument two types of environments, 1) State-based and 2) Image-based, with support for efficient call stack extraction. Through experimental evaluation, we find that CA2 achieves consistent improvement over the non-code aware baselines, which does not leverage call stack information. Our results show that incorporating code signals like the call stack enables more effective and targeted game testing.

Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve strong performance on logical reasoning benchmarks, yet their reliability remains uncertain. Existing evaluations rely on static benchmarks, which fail to assess robustness under logically equivalent transformations and often overestimate reasoning capability. We propose LGMT (Logic-Grounded Metamorphic Testing), an oracle-free framework that leverages first-order logic (FOL) to evaluate LLM reasoning. By deriving metamorphic relations from formal logical equivalences, LGMT constructs semantically invariant test cases and detects reasoning defects through cross-case consistency checking. Experiments on six state-of-the-art LLMs show that LGMT exposes substantial hidden defects missed by traditional reference-based evaluations. We further find that models are particularly sensitive to symbol-level and conclusion-level variations, and that advanced prompting such as Few-shot CoT only partially mitigates these issues. These results suggest that LLM evaluation should move beyond isolated correctness toward robustness under logical invariance. LGMT provides a principled and scalable approach for diagnosing reasoning failures.

Testing robots requires assessing whether they perform their intended tasks correctly, dependably, and with high quality, a challenge known as the test oracle problem in software testing. Traditionally, this assessment relies on task-specific symbolic oracles for task correctness and on human manual evaluation of robot behavior, which is time-consuming, subjective, and error-prone. To address this, we propose VISOR, a Vision-Language Model (VLM)-based approach for automated test oracle assessment that eliminates the need of expensive human evaluations. VISOR performs automated evaluation of task correctness and quality, addressing the limitations of existing symbolic test oracles, which are task-specific and provide pass/fail judgments without explicitly quantifying task quality. Given the inherent uncertainty in VLMs, VISOR also explicitly quantifies its own uncertainty during test assessments. We evaluated VISOR using two VLMs, i.e., GPT and Gemini, across four robotic tasks on over 1,000 videos. Results show that Gemini achieves higher recall while GPT achieves higher precision. However, both models show low correlation between uncertainty and correctness, which prevents using uncertainty as a correctness predictor.

The Danish Technological Institute (DTI) focuses on transferring advanced technologies (including robots) to the industry and the public sector. One key application is laptop refurbishment using specialized robots, aimed at promoting reuse, reducing electronic waste, and supporting the European Circular Economy Action Plan. The software of such robots often includes features that use object detection models to detect objects for various purposes, such as identifying screws for laptop disassembly or detecting stickers to remove them. Ensuring the robustness of such models to small input variations remains a critical challenge, and addressing it is important to avoid potential damage to laptops during refurbishment. In this paper, we propose PROBE, a search-based robustness testing approach that leverages multi-objective optimization to identify minimal, localized perturbations that expose failures in object detection models used in the software of laptop refurbishing robots. PROBE employs NSGA-II to systematically explore the perturbation space, optimizing for failure induction considering both localization and confidence, and perturbation magnitude, while enabling the discovery of diverse failure cases. Results show that PROBE is 3$\times$ to 7$\times$ more effective than random search in generating failure-inducing perturbations, while requiring smaller perturbation magnitudes, and that the generated perturbations transfer across models. We further show that metamorphic relations provide additional insights into model robustness, enabling the assessment of stability even in non-failing cases.

LLM-based game generation promises to turn natural-language specifications into executable games, but progress is limited by the lack of reliable automated verification. Unlike conventional code generation, game correctness is defined over long-horizon interaction: a game may appear correct while violating core mechanics such as state updates, interaction rules, and phase transitions. Existing Agent-as-a-Verifier approaches collapse verification into open-ended gameplay, making verdicts reachability-bound, time-consuming, coverage-limited, and sensitive to the agent's gameplay ability. We present GameGen-Verifier, an automated verification paradigm for LLM-generated games that decomposes a specification into verifiable keypoints and grounds them into independent verification units. Each unit patches the game runtime into a concrete target state, executes a bounded interaction, and judges the outcome against the keypoint assertion. We implement GGV-Harness, a scalable agentic harness providing concurrency management, runtime isolation, and fault recovery. On VeriGame, our dataset of 100 games across seven genres, GameGen-Verifier achieves up to 92.2% accuracy against human judgments versus 58.8% for the coverage-enforced Agent-as-a-Verifier baseline, while reducing wall-clock time by up to 16.6x.

As autonomous agents become increasingly sophisticated, validating their sequential behavior presents a significant challenge. Traditional testing approaches require manual specification, exact sequence matching, or thousands of training examples. We present a novel algorithm that automatically learns correct behavior from just 2-10 passing execution traces and validates new executions against this learned model. Our approach combines dominator analysis from compiler theory with multimodal large language model-powered semantic understanding to identify essential states and handle non-deterministic behavior. The system constructs a generalized ground truth model using Prefix Tree Acceptors, merges traces through multi-tiered equivalence detection, and validates new executions via topological subsequence matching. In controlled experiments, our system achieved high accuracy in detecting product bugs and false successes using only 3 training traces. This approach provides explainable validation results with coverage metrics and works across diverse domains including UI testing, code generation, and robotic processes.

Maintaining reliable UI test suites in large-scale enterprise applications is a persistent and costly challenge. We present an industrial case study of a multi-agent autonomous testing system evaluated using anonymized execution data from a production-like enterprise UI testing prototype. The application features several hundred dynamic UI elements per screen. Built on a large language model with LangGraph orchestration, Playwright execution, and a RAG knowledge base, the system evolves from human-directed testing toward High-autonomy feature discovery and test execution: given no explicit test targets, it discovers over 100 testable features across 10 UI screens, dynamically expands coverage by an additional 15--30 features through runtime DOM analysis, and iteratively repairs failing tests without human intervention. We analyzed 300 consecutive autonomous execution reports encompassing 636 individual test-case executions across 10 distinct scenario families. The system achieved a 70% repair convergence rate at the scenario-family level, with a mean of 3.4 repair iterations to convergence. However, only 10% of scenario families succeeded on first attempt, 38% of reports failed to produce any executable test artifact, and we documented concrete instances of assertion weakening and test-case deletion used as workaround mechanisms to achieve superficial convergence. Our findings show that unrestricted autonomy leads to unstable and often misleading outcomes, while constrained autonomy transforms such systems into operationally viable workflows. Rather than advocating full autonomy, our findings suggest that reliable autonomous testing in enterprise-scale settings requires explicit constraints, validation boundaries, and human oversight to preserve semantic correctness and operational trustworthiness.

Traditional approaches to test case generation often involve manual effort and incur significant computational overhead. Additionally, these approaches are not scalable, and hence, unsuitable for complex software systems. Recently, Large Language Models (LLMs) have been applied to software testing. However, single-shot prompt engineering-based approaches tend to hallucinate and generate redundant test cases, resulting in fewer branches. To handle the above-mentioned limitations, in this paper, we propose FeedbackLLM, a novel automated language-agnostic test case generation framework based on tightly coupled two-stage approach. In the first stage, FeedbackLLM extracts the input constraints by parsing source code and generates the possible test cases. The quality of the test cases is evaluated in the second stage by the following two specialized LLM feedback agents: (i) Line Feedback Agent: extracts the metadata related to missed line executions and (ii) Branch Feedback Agent: extracts the metadata of the unexecuted branch conditions. The above agents operate in a two-stage process, communicating in tandem, and this procedure is repeated for k-steps. Further, we also introduced a redundancy prevention cache to avoid duplicate API requests and avoid unnecessary execution cycles. The performance of the proposed architecture is evaluated on the standard benchmark programs related to C and Python programs. FeedbackLLM demonstrated more line and branch coverage than baseline tools while scaling linearly in execution time.

Developing effective test cases capable of thoroughly exercising large-scale software systems is inherently difficult, especially if such systems have voluminous, complex, and deeply nested source codes. In this work, we present a novel approach for generating test cases using a reinforcement learning-driven agentic framework where Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO) is coupled with an LLM engine to guide prompt selection during test generation. Our approach consists of two phases. In Phase I, the ToT-guided optimization agent partitions and minimizes the source code by removing redundancies without changing the functional behavior of the source code. In Phase II, a PPO-based policy network is trained to solve the problem of selecting prompts among eight different prompting techniques, such as Boundary Value Analysis, Random Fuzzing, etc., based on the inputted 11-dimensional state vector representing the source code complexity metrics and live coverage metrics to direct the LLM engine towards exploring unvisited paths in the program. The PPO agent receives rewards based on a combination of increases in line and branch coverages, penalties for unexplored branches, and rewards for reducing source code length. From experiments conducted on twenty benchmark programs, it is evident that the proposed approach, PPO-LLM, outperforms CBMC, kS-LLM, and kS-LLM++ in terms of branch and line coverage in almost all cases, for various loop bound values ranging from BOUND1 to BOUND2000. While at BOUND~1, the coverage of branches is 100% using PPO-LLM on the PALS suite, in comparison, it is around 86.8% using kS-LLM++. This confirms that adaptive prompt selection driven by PPO substantially outperforms static prompting strategies on PALS type programs.

Quantum machine learning integrates the strengths of quantum computing and machine learning, enabling models to learn complex features using fewer parameters than their classical counterparts. Due to the increasing complexity of quantum machine learning models, it is necessary to verify that the implementation of these models satisfy the design specification and be free of bugs and faults. Mutation testing is a promising avenue to identify faulty quantum circuits that do not meet design specifications or contain defects by intentionally inserting faults into the quantum circuit. It is necessary to define mutation operations to inject faults into quantum circuits to ensure that a test suite is robust enough to evaluate an implementation against its design specification. In this paper, we extend mutation testing to quantum machine learning applications, primarily quantum neural network models. Specifically, this paper makes two important contributions. We define new mutation operations for efficient fault insertion compared to state-of-the-art approaches. We also present a directed mutation generation technique to reduce redundant mutant circuits. Extensive experimental evaluation demonstrates that our approach generates a more diverse and representative set of mutants, effectively addressing faults that traditional techniques fail to expose.

Transformers now underpin critical AI systems across industry and research. Yet their faults can silently alter model behavior without runtime errors, and existing techniques offer little support for tracing these failures to their component and root cause. Such faults evade detection because loss and numerical values stay normal, and the visible symptom rarely identifies the component responsible. We present DEFault++, a hierarchical learning-based technique that first detects a fault, then identifies the affected component, and finally the cause within it, helping developers effectively debug transformer models. DEFault++ organizes component-level runtime measurements with a Fault Propagation Graph (FPG), a structural prior over the architecture's dependency paths, and reports the evidence behind each diagnosis. To train and evaluate it, we construct DEFault-bench, a benchmark of 5,556 labeled runs from mutation testing across seven models, nine tasks, and both encoder and decoder architectures. DEFault++ improves fault detection over four prior techniques, reaching an F1 of 0.826--0.909, and in a developer study with 21 participants, it raises repair accuracy from 57.1% to 83.3%. These results show that transformer fault diagnosis benefits from component-level measurements and architecture-aware reasoning rather than model-level behavior alone, and DEFault-bench provides a foundation for further research on transformer fault diagnosis.

Existing REST API testing tools are typically evaluated using code coverage and crash-based fault metrics. However, recent LLM-based approaches increasingly generate tests from NL requirements to validate functional behaviour, making traditional metrics weak proxies for whether generated tests validate intended behaviour. To address this gap, we present RESTestBench, a benchmark comprising three REST services paired with manually verified NL requirements in both precise and vague variants, enabling controlled and reproducible evaluation of requirement-based test generation. RESTestBench further introduces a requirements-based mutation testing metric that measures the fault-detection effectiveness of a generated test case with respect to a specific requirement, extending the property-based approach of Bartocci et al. . Using RESTestBench, we evaluate two approaches across multiple state-of-the-art LLMs: (i) non-refinement-based generation, and (ii) refinement-based generation guided by interaction with the running SUT. In the refinement experiments, RESTestBench assesses how exposure to the actual implementation, valid or mutated, affects test effectiveness. Our results show that test effectiveness drops considerably when the generator interacts with faulty or mutated code, especially for vague requirements, sometimes negating the benefit of refinement and indicating that incorporating actual SUT behaviour is unnecessary when requirement detail is high.

This paper presents PSA-Eval, a failure-centered runtime evaluation framework for deployed trilingual public-space agents. The central claim is that, when the evaluation object shifts from a static input-output mapping to a runtime system, the basic unit of analysis should shift from score to failure. PSA-Eval extends the conventional chain Question -> Answer -> Score -> End into Question -> Batch -> Run -> Score -> Failure Case -> Repair -> Regression Batch, making failures traceable, reviewable, repairable, and regression-testable. The framework uses trilingual equivalent inputs as controlled probes for observing group-level cross-language policy drift. We conduct a pilot study on a real trilingual digital front-desk system deployed in the lobby of an international financial institution. The pilot uses a simplified single-foundation-model setting (MA = MB), so the observed drift should not be interpreted as an A/B foundation-model difference. The study contains 81 samples organized into 27 trilingual equivalent question groups. Although the system achieves an average score of 23.15/24, 14 groups show non-zero cross-language score drift, 5 groups show drift of at least 3 points, and the maximum drift reaches 9 points. These results provide initial evidence that failure-centered runtime evaluation can expose structured deployment signals hidden by aggregate scoring.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as customer-facing agents, yet evaluating their reliability remains challenging due to stochastic, multi-turn interactions. Current evaluation protocols rely on linear Monte Carlo rollouts of complete agent-user conversations to estimate success. However, this approach is computationally inefficient, repeatedly regenerating identical early prefixes, and often fails to uncover deep failure modes that arise from rare user behaviors. We introduce DIVERT (Diversity-Induced Evaluation via Branching of Trajectories), an efficient, snapshot-based, coverage-guided user simulation framework for systematic exploration of agent-user interactions. DIVERT captures the full agent-environment state at critical decision points and resumes execution from these snapshots, enabling reuse of shared conversation prefixes and reducing redundant computation. From each junction, the framework branches using targeted, diversity-inducing user responses, allowing directed exploration of alternative interaction paths. By focusing evaluation on semantically diverse and underexplored trajectories, DIVERT improves both efficiency and coverage. Empirical results show that it discovers more failures per token compared to standard linear rollout protocols, while expanding the set of tasks on which failures are identified.

With the growing synergy between deep learning and quantum computing, Quantum Neural Networks (QNNs) have emerged as a promising paradigm by leveraging quantum parallelism and entanglement. However, testing QNNs remains underexplored due to their complex quantum dynamics and limited interpretability. Developing a mutation testing technique for QNNs is promising while requires addressing stochastic factors, including the inherent randomness of mutation operators and quantum measurements. To tackle these challenges, we propose QuanForge, a mutation testing framework specifically designed for QNNs. We first introduce statistical mutation killing to provide a more reliable criterion. QuanForge incorporates nine post-training mutation operators at both gate and parameter levels, capable of simulating various potential errors in quantum circuits. Finally, a mutant generation algorithm is formalized that systematically produces effective mutants, thereby enabling a robust and reliable mutation analysis. Through extensive experiments on benchmark datasets and QNN architectures, we show that QuanForge can effectively distinguish different test suites and localize vulnerable circuit regions, providing insights for data enhancement and structural assessment of QNNs. We also analyze the generation capabilities of different operators and evaluate performance under simulated noisy conditions to assess the practical feasibility of QuanForge for future quantum devices.

Context. Behaviour-Driven Development (BDD) suites in Gherkin accumulate step-text duplication with documented maintenance cost. Prior detectors either require runnable tests or are single-organisation, leaving a gap: a static, paraphrase-robust, step-level detector and a public benchmark to calibrate it. Objective. We release (i) the largest cross-organisational BDD step corpus to date, (ii) a labelled pair-level calibration benchmark, and (iii) a four-strategy detector with a consolidation-savings model linking clusters to ISO/IEC 25010 maintainability sub-characteristics. Method. The corpus contains 347 public GitHub repositories, 23,667 .feature files, and 1,113,616 Gherkin steps, SPDX-tagged. The detector layers exact hashing, normalised Levenshtein, sentence-transformer cosine, and a Levenshtein-banded hybrid. Calibration uses 1,020 manually labelled step pairs under a released rubric (60-pair overlap, Fleiss kappa = 0.84). We report precision, recall, and F1 with bootstrap 95% CIs under the primary rubric and a score-free relabelling, and benchmark against SourcererCC-style and NiCad-style lexical baselines. Results. Step-weighted exact-duplicate rate is 80.2%; median-repository rate is 58.6% (Spearman rho = 0.51). The top hybrid cluster has 20,737 occurrences across 2,245 files. Near-exact reaches F1 = 0.822 on score-free labels; semantic F1 = 0.906 under the primary rubric reflects a disclosed stratification artefact. Lexical baselines reach F1 = 0.761 and 0.799. The savings model estimates 893,357 corpus-wide eliminable step occurrences; on the median repository 62.5% of step lines are eliminable.

Machine learning components are now central to AI-infused software systems, from recommendations and code assistants to clinical decision support. As regulations and governance frameworks increasingly require deleting sensitive data from deployed models, machine unlearning is emerging as a practical alternative to full retraining. However, unlearning introduces a software quality-assurance challenge: under realistic deployment constraints and imperfect oracles, how can we test that a model no longer relies on targeted information? This paper frames unlearning testing as a first-class software engineering problem. We argue that practical unlearning tests must provide (i) thorough coverage over proxy and mediated influence pathways, (ii) debuggable diagnostics that localize where leakage persists, (iii) cost-effective regression-style execution under query budgets, and (iv) black-box applicability for API-deployed models. We outline a causal, pathway-centric perspective, causal fuzzing, that generates budgeted interventions to estimate residual direct and indirect effects and produce actionable "leakage reports". Proof-of-concept results illustrate that standard attribution checks can miss residual influence due to proxy pathways, cancellation effects, and subgroup masking, motivating causal testing as a promising direction for unlearning testing.