Automated Test Generation

Quantum libraries are now critical infrastructure for quantum algorithm development, yet their correctness remains difficult to test. Existing testing techniques mainly rely on failure-based or comparison-based oracles, exposing bugs only when executions fail, violate runtime checks, or disagree with another implementation. Their applicability is limited when suitable execution-based oracles are unavailable, leaving some silent bugs undetected. Such missed bugs can produce incorrect results that propagate into experimental conclusions, simulation studies, and algorithmic designs. Here we present QuSema, an autonomous testing agent for finding silent bugs in quantum libraries. QuSema uses constraints from quantum semantics and documentation as a source-level semantic oracle to assess whether implementation logic can produce invalid outputs from valid inputs. It operates through an agentic loop that repeatedly inspects library API documentation and source code, reasons about the intended behavior of quantum operations, identifies potential semantic deviations, and validates them by generating executable tests through library APIs. Guided by quantum-domain reasoning, QuSema turns high-level behavioral mismatches into concrete, user-triggerable bug reports, enabling it to uncover non-crash defects. We implement QuSema for Qiskit and PennyLane. On a benchmark of 20 historical silent bugs, QuSema achieves higher mean bug relocation counts than Claude Code and Codex, with the DeepSeek configuration costing less than Claude Code. QuSema also discovers 40 previously unknown bugs confirmed by the developers, including 30 silent bugs.

SWE-agent ensembles improve issue resolution by combining candidate patches from different agents with complementary strengths. The central problem is therefore test-based selection: generate tests, execute candidate patches, and identify the best patch. We formulate this process as test-space optimization: evolving an executable repository test suite until it distinguishes competing patches. Existing test-generation methods are limited optimizers. They usually lack an explicit loss for ensemble selection, optimize through incomplete directions that mostly create new tests or delete old ones, and perform one-off generation without feedback from repeated failures. Inspired by gradient descent with momentum, we introduce TestGRAD, a framework for automatic test optimization. TestGRAD centers on three concepts. Differential loss gives the optimizer an explicit execution-defined target: useful tests should separate candidate patches by behavior. Full CRUD gradients expand the update direction from merely creating or deleting tests to reading existing test infrastructure, creating new tests, updating stale assertions, and deleting only obsolete tests. Failure Pattern Momentum mines frequent failure sequences from memory, allowing the optimizer to avoid repeated non-discriminative directions while compressing the failure-history context. On SWE-bench Verified, TestGRAD achieves 84.2% Pass@1 with a 4-agent ensemble, outperforming the strongest baseline (80.6%) by an absolute improvement of 3.6 percentage points, while compressing failure-history context by over $100\times$.

Coding agents are now proficient enough to generate complex software applications from a single prompt. As their capabilities have grown, human oversight has increasingly shifted from line-by-line code review toward hands-off evaluation of outcomes. However, recent studies have shown that such a transition exposes a critical risk: functional correctness alone does not guarantee a secure implementation. Despite growing attention to code security, training safer coding agents remains challenging because reliable security supervision is difficult to obtain at scale from real-world repositories. We introduce AuraForge to synthesize and validate executable security tests for training secure coding agents. Our approach combines attack-oriented test synthesis, language-extensible task construction, and safeguards against reward hacking. Using AuraForge, we construct AuraGym, a multi-language and multi-CWE executable training gym: 679 executable feature-implementation tasks from 344 real-world repositories across Python, JavaScript, and TypeScript, covering 177 CWE categories. On the subset with human-written security tests, AuraForge produces about 3 times as many test cases on average and reduces the false-positive rate by 83.23%, allowing alternative secure implementations to receive correct supervision. Training Qwen3.5-4B with synthesized security tests gains larger improvements than human-written security tests (average 19.7 FuncPass and 6.2 SecPass vs. 14.9 FuncPass and 4.4 SecPass) on three languages. These results demonstrate that AuraForge provides more diverse and reliable security supervision to train secure coding agents.

Large language models receive limited explicit training in reasoning about runtime program states. We study whether training models to reason about runtime program states improves downstream software-engineering capabilities. We introduce two complementary program-state reasoning tasks. Buggy input-output reasoning requires a model to generate a concrete input that exposes a behavioral difference between a buggy program and a hidden correct implementation and to predict the resulting execution behavior. Precondition-postcondition reasoning requires an agent to symbolically characterize a bug-triggering precondition, predict the expected postcondition, explain their causal connection, and instantiate this reasoning as an executable regression test. By incorporating these two tasks into a staged post-training pipeline, we develop Comet-9B, a 9B language model based on Qwen3.5-9B Base. We evaluate the resulting checkpoints on repository-level patch generation, regression-test generation, and security PoC generation. Adding both program-state reasoning tasks to supervised fine-tuning (SFT) on issue resolution improves success rates by 7.25 percentage points on SWE-bench Pro and 9.70 points on SWT-Bench Verified. Sequential reinforcement learning on the two tasks yields further gains of 7.25, 26.79, and 4.67 percentage points on SWE-bench Pro, SWT-Bench Verified, and CyberGym, respectively. Despite having only 9B parameters, Comet-9B achieves a score comparable to the reported GPT-5.2 result on SWE-bench Pro and matches the reported success rate of a GPT-4o-based agent on SWT-Bench Verified.

Automatically generating test inputs for games is challenging, as test generators must master the game to reach advanced program states while also ensuring robustness against the heavy program randomisation inherent to games. The test generator Neatest therefore optimises test suites consisting of neural networks that reach advanced program states and are robust to program randomisation, as they generate test inputs dynamically based on the current program state. Neatest is a white-box testing approach that aims to generate a network agent for each yet-uncovered statement or branch of the code using neuroevolution. Due to this iterative test generation approach, the algorithm does not scale well to larger programs that may contain thousands of branches. Furthermore, covering every statement or branch in a game often does not correspond to playing the game as intended. To alleviate these shortcomings, we propose combining Neatest with a model-based testing approach that allows game testers to define test scenarios via abstract game models. The test generator then no longer optimises networks to reach all branches or statements of a program, but instead trains networks to replicate the concrete desired testing behaviour expressed by the abstract game model. An evaluation on 13 Scratch games across varying genres demonstrates that Neatest, combined with model-based testing, is able to optimise agents that replicate the desired gameplay behaviour defined in the game models while increasing achieved branch coverage by 7% compared to the traditional code-guided Neatest approach.

The conventional testing process quickly fails when applied to ML-based systems such as obstacle detection in vehicles: if an obstacle is not detected in a test, classical bug fixing is impossible and an AI system will always retain shortcomings. Test results can therefore only be interpreted statistically, which in turn requires test sets that are not only complete with respect to the operational design domain (ODD) of the system, but also representative of it. To this end, we introduce probabilistically extended ontologies (PEONs): ontologies describing the ODD, augmented with a probability distribution over the partitioning they induce. Instead of unmaintainable conditional probability tables, only marginal distributions and functionally described dependencies need to be specified; algorithms based on couplings and optimal transport complete this specification to a Bayesian network. From a PEON we derive the sampling of representative test cases, rigorous end-of-test criteria for given quality targets and significance levels, and methods for re-evaluating existing test results and for assessing the balance of training data. We demonstrate the practical modelling of a complex ODD using the example of automatic train operation.

Automated kernel vulnerability reproduction is essential for bug triage, patch validation, and regression testing, but still lacks an effective and efficient solution. The core challenge is twofold: a reproducer must first recover the trigger scaffold needed to reach the vulnerable state and determine the precise concrete values that actually trigger the bug. Existing directed fuzzing approaches are ineffective at recovering the necessary trigger scaffold, while LLM-only generation is brittle because it struggles with concrete-value discovery and runtime nondeterminism. We design SyzHarness, a framework that combines LLM reasoning with coverage-guided fuzzing for patch-based Linux kernel vulnerability reproduction. Given a patch, SyzHarness uses an LLM agent grounded by code navigation tools to synthesize a parameterized fuzzing harness that fixes the prerequisite setup logic while exposing only uncertain, bug-critical input parameters to be mutated by Syzkaller. SyzHarness then translates this harness into a Syzkaller compatible interface and iteratively refines it using hierarchical reachability feedback. We evaluate SyzHarness on multiple datasets of triggerable real-world Linux kernel vulnerabilities. On 100 KernelCTF cases, SyzHarness achieves a 78% bug reproduction success rate. On the SyzDirect benchmark, SyzHarness achieves a 73% bug reproduction success rate, substantially outperforming prior directed greybox fuzzing. On 50 recent, known-triggerable syzbot bugs fixed after March 2026, SyzHarness reproduces 40/50 (80%) using only the fix commits as input.

Test case synthesis is crucial for evaluating and ranking programs generated by large language models (LLMs). However, constructing high-quality test cases remains challenging because reliable expected outputs are often difficult to obtain. We propose Confidence-Gated Transductive Test Generation (CoTT), which first uses an efficient inductive procedure and invokes transductive generation only when inductive confidence is low. This adaptive design improves output reliability while allocating extra computation only when needed. On code reranking benchmarks, CoTT outperforms prior baselines across the reported metrics while reducing cost relative to applying transductive generation to every input. These results show that confidence-based allocation of test-time computation provides a favorable efficiency-effectiveness trade-off with a single efficient LLM.

Execution feedback can guide coding agents toward correct repository repairs, but only when the tests capture the behavior requested by the issue. Agent-generated tests can encode incomplete or incorrect behavioral targets; when the same trajectory writes both the patch and the test, their errors can agree and create false confidence. We introduce ExecCritic, combining a test--verify--revise scaffold with a role-specific reinforcement learning recipe for training agents within it. 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. Both roles use Qwen-3.5-35B-A3B as the backbone and are trained separately. In Learn to Test, the Test agent learns to produce behaviorally valid tests that distinguish correct from incorrect patches. In Test to Improve, the Repair agent learns both direct task resolution and feedback-guided revision. On SWE-bench Verified, test quality determines whether feedback helps: holding the base Repair agent fixed, tests from the base Test agent reduce resolved rate from a no-test baseline of 61.2% to 57.3%, whereas tests from GPT-5.6-sol raise it to 65.3%. Role-specific post-training raises the Qwen Test agent's Base-to-Gold success from 22.2% to 62.2%; composing the two post-trained Qwen agents reaches 72.6%, an 11.4-point gain over the original no-test baseline without stronger-model or Oracle feedback at evaluation time. Code is publicly available at https://github.com/MSR-Orchard/execcritic.

Reinforcement learning (RL) has substantially advanced code generation with large language models (LLMs) through executable feedback. The feedback for coding problems mainly comes from specific test cases, where high-quality test cases are often scarce since they should be both sound and discriminative. We thus turn to study the auto-generation of test cases using the learned model. We find this is naturally an adversarial RL problem: the model is expected to generate effective test cases as counterexamples, depending on the solver's current failure modes. We propose Test Cases Scaling (TCS), a two-stage RL framework for effective test generation. Both stages train a test generator from a rolling policy-aligned buffer: Stage 1 generates tests consistent with the reference solution, and Stage 2 restricts the buffer to current failure modes and learns counterexample tests. Across TACO and LiveCodeBench, TCS improves both pass@1 and inference-time answer selection according to generated tests. We find the learned test generator also enables effective selection among other LLM outputs.

Deep neural networks are increasingly deployed in safety-critical domains as perception modules, where failures are often caused due to rare and under-represented scenarios. This necessitates the need to evaluate the semantic robustness of perception models; conformance of behavior to high-level requirements over real-world perceptual variability. To address this, we propose SeFaR, a framework for systematic semantic-feature-centric testing of vision models. Given a natural-language requirement and a set of satisfying inputs, SeFaR evaluates robustness with respect to diverse realistic semantic variations that preserve requirement satisfaction. The approach employs a novel hierarchical concept model enabling structured exploration of the feature space and incorporation of domain knowledge via user-defined concepts. State-of-the-art diffusion and vision-language models are leveraged to generate photorealistic semantics-preserving perturbations and identification of previously unknown features impacting behavior. A feedback-driven adaptive process is adopted to generate interpretable failure-inducing semantic concepts along with corresponding test inputs. Evaluation on case studies demonstrates that the proposed framework effectively satisfies requirement preconditions while identifying requirement-independent features that influence model decisions, enabling it to both uncover faults and relate them to such features.

Large language models (LLMs) have advanced code generation, where executable feedback provides a more reliable learning signal than textual imitation alone. Hardware verification is an important application of code generation and accounts for a substantial fraction of modern chip design effort, with high-coverage testbench stimulus generation as a key task. We present CHORUS, a post-training framework that pushes performance beyond what a conventional supervised fine-tuning (SFT)-to-reinforcement learning (RL) pipeline achieves. CHORUS builds on two observations. First, staged SFT produces behaviorally diverse checkpoints, and dense-reward RL turns them into strong experts with comparable aggregate performance but distinct task-level strengths. Second, these complementary strengths can be exploited through either training-free model merging or further post-training to outperform the best individual expert. By consolidating the resulting specialists into a single 4B model, CHORUS achieves 88.0% Pass@1 on CVDP-ECov, outperforming DeepSeek-R1 (671B) by 13.5 percentage points.

Robotics simulators serve as a foundational infrastructure for embodied AI, facilitating safe and scalable robotic system development. NVIDIA Isaac Sim has emerged as one of the most popular simulators, distinguished by its GPU-accelerated physics engine and photorealistic rendering, which enable high-fidelity modeling of complex environments. However, its inherent complexity inevitably introduces software bugs that can compromise simulation reliability. Existing fuzzing approaches struggle to test Isaac Sim effectively due to challenges of context-aware object semantics, hierarchical simulation control, and a vast simulation state space. In this paper, we propose IcFuzz, the first fuzzing approach for Isaac Sim. IcFuzz first performs an LLM-based semantic stage segmentation, decomposing simulation programs into structured stages that capture context-aware object semantics. Guided by this information, IcFuzz designs multi-level mutation operators to systematically exercise the simulator across hierarchical granularities. To efficiently navigate the vast simulation state space, IcFuzz employs a multi-armed bandit algorithm to adaptively schedule mutation operators. Experimental results show that IcFuzz outperforms the baselines in terms of both code coverage and bug detection. Specifically, IcFuzz achieves approximately 190%--205% of the code coverage of the baselines and detects an average of 3.7 unique crashes over three rounds of 12-hour tests, while no crashes are detected by the baselines. Moreover, IcFuzz has uncovered 11 bugs over approximately four months, 9 of which have been confirmed or fixed by the developers.

Terminal User Interfaces (TUIs) combine the stateful, screen-oriented behaviour of GUIs with terminal deployment and are now common in developer tools. Yet they lack a dedicated testing methodology. We survey 197 real-world TUI applications: only 12% of test code exercises the interface, and 45% of those tests never send input, checking a static frame instead. We turn these applications into a headless benchmark spanning ratatui/Rust, bubbletea/Go, textual/Python, and ink/TypeScript, packaging each as an instrumented Docker image. We record line and widget coverage where reliable, rendered terminal states, and crashes. Under equal wall-clock budgets, we compare four frontier LLMs with random exploration. No model dominates. Random is a strong time-budgeted baseline, but its crash advantage comes from higher throughput: per interaction, LLM guidance is more efficient and uniquely reaches input-gated faults. Automatically deriving launch inputs yields the largest practical gain, enabling applications that otherwise never start. Line coverage poorly predicts crash discovery, weakening it as a proxy for test effectiveness. Automated TUI testing is feasible but far from solved, and honest baselines matter more than model choice. We release the coverage tool tuicov at https://github.com/tui-testing/tuicov and the testing framework tuibot at https://github.com/tui-testing/tuibot.

Online-judge verdicts and the datasets and benchmarks built on them are treated as ground truth for evaluating and training large language models for code. Yet prior audits have sounded a warning: official suites accept buggy submissions. These audits, however, stop at the warning and offer no practical remedy. Our remedy has two parts: an off-the-shelf coding agent, serving as a test-suite auditor, both builds adversarial test suites to expose what official suites miss and supplies these suites where no official suite exists; a certification chain determines whether each agent-flagged submission is genuinely buggy without relying on the official judge: multiple independently written accepted solutions agree on the expected output for every test, brute-force solutions settle disagreements, and a per-problem validator certifies each failing input legal. One such agent identifies 589 verified accepted-but-buggy submissions among AtCoder's 20,375 audited accepted submissions; extending the same certification to all five agents yields a union floor of 906 such submissions. Five agents, scored separately, each stay within 1.7pp of official-suite coverage on logic bugs those suites catch. On post-cutoff Codeforces problems with no available official suites, the same test-building method leads all five reproduced baselines at every tested input budget. Where an official suite exists, the agent audits suite adequacy instead of assuming it; where none exists, agent suites catch the most buggy submissions among methods we reproduced and tested.

Language models are increasingly promoted from examinees to examiners: they write the test suites, answer keys, rubrics, and reward functions that define correctness for other systems. We measure the capability that role assumes and find it lacking under the protocol the role is usually deployed with, one-shot greedy authoring with no test-time reasoning. Across four reference constructions - two with complete finite truth, one with a hardened executable reference (HumanEval+/MBPP+), one with an explicitly incomplete lexical reference (WordNet) - models judge whether a candidate belongs far better than they author the set itself. On the incompleteness-proof algorithmic construction the gap is +0.34 to +0.29 F1 over a 24x parameter range and does not close; on executable code, models judging at F1 0.74-0.90 author suites admitting only 19-42% of oracle-correct solutions. A control locates the deficit: asked to emit the predicate rather than its extension, the same models reach F1 about 0.99. The failure is not missing knowledge or an inability to specify, but an inability to materialise the region a specification induces. The dominant error is omission, which resists audit: an over-inclusion is a token a reviewer can challenge, a missing member an absence whose discovery is the authoring problem itself. Models detect planted over-inclusions 6-7x more often than planted omissions, and a production deployment of 43,227 items fails omission-first at 10:1. Wired into RLVR, an authored key costs 1.9 points of accuracy against an exact oracle and 18.5 WordNet-relative (six paired seeds, p=0.031). Gating authored verifiers on a known-correct probe cuts false rejection from 58-92% to at most 5%, but keeps only 5-39% of suites. Repairing them instead, by rewriting each wrong expected value to what a reference execution returns, raises yield 3.3-10.6x across four author families.

Migration of legacy COBOL programs to Java requires extensive testing to ensure correct functionality. This effort is often complicated by the lack of test data and the difficulty of validating all corner cases. In this paper we propose a novel agentic test-synthesis method, the "Locksmith Loop," which is initiated by preparing two runtime environments: the COBOL source and the generated Java target are each instrumented with mocks and executed off-mainframe on commodity hardware, then an iterative agentic loop performs Witness Search over input mocks to penetrate program branches, followed by parity-preserving mutations. When routing boundaries are reached, an analyzer identifies a Locked Paragraph: a condition preventing deeper exploration. Across three COBOL-Java case studies, spanning two open-source programs and one internal production-like COBOL program and ranging from 430 to 4,114 source lines, Locksmith consistently improved coverage beyond input-search plateaus, reaching nearly complete coverage on the two open-source programs and 91.90% branch coverage on the internal production-like COBOL program. The generated Java matched the COBOL reference under deterministic parity checks in all accepted test cases. Through these findings we demonstrate, to the best of our knowledge, a novel approach for validating agentic coding output using a deterministic oracle.

As quantum computing continually improves, ensuring the reliability and correctness of quantum libraries has become increasingly critical. To this end, many LLM-based fuzzing approaches towards quantum libraries have been proposed to uncover potential bugs. However, these methods still suffer from limitations such as insufficient flexibility and low efficiency, which hinder the progress of the quantum computing field. To address these challenges, we propose KQFuzz, a novel knowledge-guided fuzzer for quantum libraries. It leverages comprehensive codebase knowledge to ground LLM-based test generation, synergizing this with fitness-guided evaluation and two-level mutations to explore complex execution paths and trigger potential bugs. Firstly, KQFuzz introduces a novel prompting scheme tailored to quantum programs, which strategically incorporates knowledge of the codebase to efficiently generate high-quality quantum seed programs. Moreover, we develop evaluation and mutation strategies to handle the generated seed programs, facilitating efficient fuzzing execution while further enriching the diversity of the resulting test cases. We implement KQFuzz and conduct fuzzing on three popular quantum libraries, including Qiskit, PennyLane, and Cirq. Experimental results demonstrate that our approach significantly outperforms other state-of-the-art methods, with coverage improved by up to 18.44%. During the development of KQFuzz, we discovered 13 bugs, all of which have been confirmed and 12 have already been fixed by the developers.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) enables Large Language Models (LLMs) to use external and domain-specific knowledge, but its reliability depends on the interaction between the generative model, embedding model, retrieval mechanism, and prompt construction strategy. We present RagTester, an automated end-to-end testing approach for RAG systems. RagTester generates retrieval documents, test inputs, and expected outputs; executes the tests; and evaluates the resulting answers using an LLM as a judge. Its test-generation strategy targets complex passages, unsupported queries, and document-coverage criteria. We evaluate RagTester using eight LLMs and six embedding models, yielding 24 compatible configurations, and compare it with a baseline test-input generator. Across 72,000 test executions, RagTester detected 21,633 failures, 6.6% more than the baseline, and outperformed it in 20 of the 24 configurations. The detected failures include inaccurate retrieval, unsupported answers, incomplete use of retrieved context, and difficulties interpreting complex passages. These results show that coverage-oriented test generation can effectively expose failures caused by the interaction between retrieval and generation components and support the assessment of RAG configurations before deployment.

Large language models increasingly write both code and the tests meant to check it; coverage records what ran, not what was verified. We study an adversarial test-hardening loop under a mechanical oracle: a Tester model writes tests, mutation testing names surviving injected defects, and a Critic model writes tests to kill exactly those, with every verdict decided mechanically, so no model judges another's output. In Experiment 1, on five Python subjects (one same-lineage-loop cell could not be scored), the loop killed 105 mutants that one-shot generation missed and lost none, and the cross-lineage-Critic question returned a pre-declared null. The central finding was an autopsy: an earlier analysis reported a cross-lineage effect at p = 9.5e-66 that was an instrument artifact, an output cap silently truncating the verbose model, caught only by adversarial review of the completed analysis. Review then found a further confound, each arm resampling its own initial suite; Experiment 2 removes it. Under a pre-registered frozen-shared-round-0 design (five replicates on each of four subjects, seeds committed in advance), same-lineage Critic rounds killed 78% of the survivors the frozen initial suite left standing (mean incremental kill rate 0.783, 95% cluster-bootstrap interval [0.592, 0.935]), a within-replicate causal estimate; the cross-provider configuration showed a positive pilot difference (rate gap 0.178, 95% interval [0.039, 0.347]; magnitude dominated by a single replicate) at 5.5x lower arm cost. This compares two named model-provider-harness configurations, not an isolated lineage effect: part of the gap is one configuration's receipted operational failures, including truncation recurrences, now detected and scored rather than laundered. Cross-model comparisons can inherit the asymmetries of the harness that runs them. We release both protocols, all receipts, and the analysis code.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) show great promise for automating unit test generation, recent studies suggest that the quality of generated tests can be negatively impacted when models are prompted with buggy code. This paper presents a new metric to quantitatively measure the "misguidance effect," a phenomenon where buggy code steers LLMs toward generating tests that validate its erroneous behavior rather than expose it. Our analysis reveals that prompting LLMs with buggy code has a severe, twofold impact: it significantly increases "misguided tests" that assert incorrect behavior while simultaneously suppressing the generation of effective, bug-finding tests. We further corroborate this effect from a model-internal perspective, showing that buggy code skews LLMs' preference toward tests that assert the same erroneous behavior. To counter this, 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. 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. Overall, these results suggest that specification-based prompting is a promising strategy for mitigating misguidance from buggy code in LLM-generated unit tests.

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.

Large Language Model (LLM)-based Test-Driven Development (TDD) has advanced automated code generation. However, existing approaches depend heavily on human-crafted test cases and cannot operate effectively when only natural-language requirements are available. Although recent work enables automatic test generation, it often overlooks the inherent stochasticity of LLMs, leading to two key defects: faulty tests generate misleading feedback that distorts code optimization, while mixed-quality test cases produce conflicting evaluation signals that hinder reliable code selection. To address these challenges, we propose MineValiCoder, a collaborative closed-loop TDD framework based on the mutual reinforcement of test-case quality and code quality. MineValiCoder comprises three modules. The Test Case Quality Mining (TCQM) module filters faulty test cases through self-validation, providing reliable optimization supervision. The Parallel TDD Refinement module iteratively optimizes code and generates diverse high-quality code candidates using validated test-case feedback. The Bipartite Graph-Based Code-Test Mutual Validation (BiCoTeV) module dynamically models code-test interactions and performs mutual validation scoring for stable and reliable optimal-code selection. Extensive evaluations across four LLMs and mainstream benchmarks show that MineValiCoder significantly outperforms state-of-the-art methods. Specifically, it achieves Pass@1 scores of 96.34% on HumanEval, 87.40% on MBPP, 64.00% on APPS, and 51.33% on LiveCodeBench. These results demonstrate the effectiveness of MineValiCoder in mitigating LLM stochasticity and improving the reliability of automated code generation.

Concurrent stateful library APIs expose behavior through evolving resource ownership, lifecycle states, and competing interleavings. Large language models can synthesize executable Rust tests, but their outputs often violate API preconditions, remain shallow, or reduce concurrency to accidental sequential traces. Conversely, model-based and systematic testing techniques provide semantic control but commonly require substantial handwritten code to turn abstract scenarios into executable tests. This paper addresses the gap between formal scenario design and low-cost test concretization. We present a Petri-net-guided methodology for test generation over concurrent stateful Rust APIs. The method represents API resources, lifecycle conditions, and causal dependencies as colored tokens and transitions; derives legal deep-state, near-legal, and partial-order concurrent scenarios; and uses these scenarios as a constrained intermediate representation for LLM-based code synthesis. A local-faithfulness contract and structural repair loop preserve the modeled intent during concretization, while Petri-guided schedule shaping prioritizes high-conflict concurrency skeletons for systematic exploration. A layered semantic oracle then distinguishes synthesis failures from violations of the target API's expected behavior.

Large language models (LLMs) have made automated program repair (APR) increasingly practical for real-world bugs, but repairing directly from bug reports remains underconstrained. Bug reproduction tests (BRTs) help close this gap by turning a bug report into an executable, bug-specific signal that can guide repair and validate candidate patches. Existing work has therefore studied BRT generation as a core subproblem in APR and mainly evaluates a generated BRT using the fail-to-pass (F->P) criterion, which requires the test to fail on the buggy code but pass on the golden fix. We show that F->P alone is insufficient when the goal of a BRT is to improve downstream repair. In particular, some F->P BRTs are lax, reproducing the observed symptom yet still admitting plausible-but-incorrect patches. We formalize this missing quality dimension by separating F->P BRTs into rigorous and lax ones, and show empirically that only the former consistently improve repair success. We further find that co-generation introduces test--fix error coupling, where the in-trajectory fail-to-pass (F->P) check can pass even when both the generated patch and generated test are wrong. Based on these findings, we propose CoHarden, a co-generation framework that uses the Lax signal as an in-loop convergence criterion. CoHarden first generates a test before any fix, then iteratively hardens the test and fix against surviving mutation patches until the generated test no longer admits Lax regressions. Experiments show that CoHarden reaches 69.4% Resolved and 78.9% F->P on SWE-bench Verified, outperforming the strongest fix-only and cogeneration baselines by +9.6 and +7.9 percentage points in Resolved, respectively, with consistent gains across LLM backbones and benchmarks.

Large-scale AI datacenter platforms comprise thousands of heterogeneous hardware components whose validation requires comprehensive fault injection test plans. Today these plans are authored manually: engineers review hardware self-healing validation documents and bills of materials, enumerate failure modes per field-replaceable unit, and produce flat lists of single-layer test cases. This process is labor-intensive, error-prone, and dependent on institutional knowledge; coverage gaps surface late, traceability to source specifications is implicit, and the effort is largely repeated per platform. This paper presents a generative AI multi-agent architecture that automates the generation of structured hardware validation test plans from two canonical inputs: self-healing validation documents, which enumerate known failure modes and their detection and remediation behaviors per field-replaceable unit, and component Bills of Material. An ingestion agent normalizes heterogeneous inputs into a canonical representation; a classification agent maps components to functional domains via contextual reasoning over part descriptions and sub-category hierarchies; and a generation agent synthesizes test cases by combining normalized failure modes with domain-classified data, filling gaps and producing edge cases. The output conforms to a standardized schema for direct import into internal validation software. Evaluated on two production platforms against manual baselines, the framework achieves coverage expansions of 74.2% and 51.4%, cutting authoring from days to hours. It yields fully traceable mappings from each test case to its source specification, and its multi-agent decomposition is portable across platform generations. Automated and expert evaluations confirm 100% extraction fidelity and high acceptance of new scenarios, validating the framework as a robust human-in-the-loop force multiplier.

While autonomous coding agents have significantly advanced automated test generation, they remain fundamentally limited by lazy generation, a phenomenon where agents prematurely terminate tasks and systematically avoid complex programmatic logic, resulting in inadequate code coverage. Currently, mitigating this premature termination requires continuous human-in-the-loop supervision. This heavy reliance on human intuition creates a bottleneck that negates the efficiency gains of automated generation. We propose SCATE, a framework for adaptive, automated supervision of coding agents that replaces human intervention during test generation. By formulating supervision as a contextual bandit problem, SCATE learns to select the most promising testing actions based on the current coverage and class testability metrics, maximizing coverage gains while minimizing wasted generation effort. Our empirical evaluation demonstrates that SCATE integrates seamlessly with different coding agents. When applied to GEMINI-CLI, it achieves 32.3% higher line coverage and 30.9% higher branch coverage than the agent-only baseline. A comparison with CLAUDE CODE confirms the framework dynamically adapts its policy to optimize each agent's unique strengths. SCATE also consistently outperforms state-of-the-art non-agentic approaches across all metrics.

Large language models frequently generate code that appears correct on typical inputs yet fails on edge cases, invalid inputs, and other specification-defined corner conditions. A popular fix has the model write its own tests and repair until they pass, but the source of the gain is unclear: does it come from the tests merely existing, or from their grounding in a specification of what the code should do? We isolate this factor. Holding the tester, test budget, and repair loop fixed, we change a single prompt line that controls whether the tester receives the spec as a checklist of rules. The baseline is strong: it is already told to probe invalid inputs and edge cases. Grounding the tests in the spec produces correct code +38 percentage points more often than this baseline across three Claude tiers (Haiku 4.5, Sonnet 4.6, Opus 4.8), and +36 points on a held-out set. Grounding, not test quantity, is the primary driver: doubling the test budget barely helps, and combining eight independent ungrounded suites plateaus far below grounding. An ablation isolates the spec's content, not its format: given the spec as a plain paragraph the tester recovers 27 of 30 bugs, but asked to plan tests without the spec it recovers only 2 of 30. The effect survives stronger baselines: a property-based generator catches 28 of 30 bugs but invents out-of-spec requirements, and an AlphaCodium-style loop only matches the baseline. It replicates across vendors (GPT-5.3-codex +28, Gemini 3.5 Flash +19), with a task-level sign test over 18 tasks significant at p=0.002. Grounding improves both sensitivity and precision: it catches more real bugs and wrongly rejects far less correct code, cutting the false-alarm rate from 33% (68% against a Python standard-library oracle) to 0%. On well-specified algorithmic problems it neither helps nor hurts.

Before fixing an issue, it is useful to first reproduce it by generating a bug reproduction test (BRT). However, generating a BRT is itself a challenging task, because issue descriptions tend to be informal, making it difficult to determine whether a candidate BRT indeed fails for the reason in the issue. Prior work has attempted to tackle this problem via inference scaling, using large language models to generate many BRTs and patches, then using execution feedback to select and improve them. Unfortunately, this is expensive and the feedback is unreliable. This paper explores evolutionary programming for BRT generation to sharpen the feedback, while enhancing evolutionary programming to keep costs in check. Our new approach, EvoOtter, controls test execution costs via successive halving. Furthermore, it controls LLM costs via batched crossover for an entire generation in a single LLM call, as well as via rule-based code mutations, with a new fitness score tailored for BRTs. As a result, EvoOtter generates state-of-the-art quality BRTs at the fraction of the cost of prior inference-scaling approaches to this problem. More broadly, this paper points at how to efficiently and effectively combine evolutionary programming with large language models for software engineering.

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.