Specification-Based Testing

As coding agents become more capable, tests remain the primary evidence for judging whether their code is correct. Yet passing available tests does not establish that an implementation satisfies its natural language specification. Reliable validation requires checks that faithfully capture the specification and scenarios that thoroughly exercise the code, but current benchmarks provide limited insight into whether agents can construct such evidence themselves. We introduce SpecGuardBench, a benchmark of 291 tasks from 13 real-world repositories, covering 8 types of verification logic such as functional postconditions and interaction protocols. Given a natural language specification, repository context, and a reference implementation, an agent constructs a validation harness comprising executable checks and test scenarios. The checks should reject implementations that violate the specification while accepting those that satisfy it, and the scenarios should thoroughly exercise the code. Across four proprietary and open-weight coding agents, none constructs a harness scored as faithful on the benchmark's implementations for more than 63% of the tasks. The bottleneck lies less in exploring test scenarios than in constructing checks that faithfully reflect the specification. Specifically, the agents show a clear tendency to write checks that mirror the reference implementation rather than the specification, and therefore reject implementations that the specification permits.

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.

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.

The rapid emergence of LLM-based agentic frameworks has significantly reduced the cost of assembling multi-agent systems (MAS), enabling fast prototyping and exploration of agentic behaviors. However, systems built with current tooling remain ill-suited for reliable, evolvable, and production-grade deployment. In practice, MAS are often developed in an ad-hoc and imperative manner, with agent logic, orchestration, observability, and control tightly interwoven, little to no explicit system-level validation, and development workflows optimized for demonstrations rather than long-lived, governed operation. As a result, behavior observed during experimentation rarely constitutes reliable evidence of behavior in production. In this paper, we introduce MAS-Lab, a specification-driven framework for principled development and experimental validation of multi-agent systems properties. MAS-Lab is designed to transform MAS from collections of scripts into engineered distributed systems by separating semantic intent from operational concerns, making behavior and control explicit, supporting reproducible experimentation, and preserving continuity across lifecycle stages. MAS-Lab consists of three layers: a declarative, framework-agnostic agentic specification layer (Spec); a stateful MAS Operating System that provides execution and control primitives plugged-in by design (MAS-OS); and a set of lab overlays with integrated observability and evaluation tools (Labs). Together, these components enable intent-based validation, principled system evolution, and a seamless transition to production-grade MAS.

Physical-structure priors such as conservation laws, Hamiltonian forms, and symmetries can improve scientific machine learning when correct, but can degrade predictions when misspecified. Existing methods usually enforce a chosen structure or tune a soft penalty, without a calibrated rule for deciding whether to impose a prior, how strongly to impose it, which prior to use, or which subset of candidate laws holds. We introduce SPADE, Structure-Prior Adaptive Decision Estimation, a closed-form framework that treats this problem as shrinkage of the structure-violating block of an unconstrained estimator. SPADE uses one exact specification test and one estimand: the test decides whether the prior is supported by data, Stein-unbiased James-Stein shrinkage sets the enforcement strength with an $O(σ^2/n)$ oracle guarantee, and a gate commits to the hard prior only when the test certifies it. The same test yields consistent nested structure selection and Benjamini-Hochberg control for subset discovery in non-nested constraint families. Across a linear-subspace prior, a reservoir conservation law, and a nonlinear Hamiltonian prior on Duffing dynamics, SPADE tracks the oracle, beats a neural-network baseline, reduces correct-prior regret from $10.3\%$ to $2.6\%$, matches cross-validation with $1/71$ of the solves, selects the correct structure with $100\%$ accuracy, and recovers partial laws with controlled false relaxation.

Generating test specifications that satisfy Automotive SPICE SWE.6 requirements becomes increasingly challenging and time-consuming as projects scale to thousands of requirements. Because this manual process often consumes weeks of engineering effort, automation becomes a critical necessity. However, standard Large Language Model (LLM) approaches struggle at scale: processing requirements individually discards vital inter-requirement dependencies, while feeding entire corpora at once exceeds context-window limits, leading to incomplete integration coverage and redundant test cases. This paper presents a novel "Cluster-then-Summarize" pipeline that addresses these limitations through three-stages. Requirements are embedded using sentence transformers and grouped using UMAP dimensionality reduction followed by HDBSCAN density-based clustering. This grouping utilizes an automatic minimum cluster size selection driven by a quality criterion combining normalized Silhouette and Calinski-Harabasz scores. A multi-level map-reduce summarization algorithm then distills each cluster into concise, domain-conformant descriptions while preserving quantitative thresholds and safety integrity levels. The pipeline exploits the derived cluster topology to generate test specifications at two levels: individual requirement verification and cluster-level integration tests that verify cross-requirement feature behavior. A nearby-cluster context mechanism provides bounded cross-feature awareness during each LLM call, and Retrieval-Augmented Generation grounds all outputs in ISO 26262 and ASPICE standards. Evaluation on automotive requirement datasets of varying scale demonstrates that the cluster-aware approach improves integration test coverage and maintains summarization fidelity compared to baseline methods while scaling efficiently to thousands of requirements.

Large language models (LLMs) have become integral to modern software development, enabling automated code generation at scale. However, validating the correctness of LLM-generated code remains a critical and largely unsolved challenge. Existing approaches either rely on dynamic consensus across multiple code candidates - making them costly and difficult to scale - or on static reasoning that is susceptible to dynamic bugs and order bias. In this paper, we propose TRAILS~ (Targeted Reasoning Agreement via Inputs and Specifications), an approach that grounds LLM reasoning with concrete (input, output) pairs. TRAILS~ first generates diverse test inputs via category partitioning based on the specification, then executes them against the candidate code and prompts LLMs to assess whether the resulting input-output pairs conform to the specification - without ever reasoning over the code itself. Scores are aggregated across inputs, to determines whether the program is likely correct. We evaluate TRAILS~ on two datasets, LiveCodeBench and CoCoClaNeL, across three LLMs (Qwen3Coder-30B, Devstral-Small-24B, and Olmo3.1-Instruct), comparing against HoarePrompt and a Zero-Shot Chain-of-Thought baseline. TRAILS~ improves Matthew Correlation Coefficient by up to 39% relative to Zero-Shot COT and consistently outperforms HoarePrompt. Beyond accuracy, TRAILS~ demonstrates greater stability across seeded runs, reducing sensitivity to LLM non-determinism, and assigns correct labels to a larger set of unique code samples than competing approaches.

Evaluating the efficiency of algorithmic code requires test cases that expose runtime bottlenecks. Previous methods generate efficiency test cases either by increasing input size or by generating code-specific inputs that make the given implementation run slowly. Consequently, they do not address the structural input conditions that drive the algorithmic worst case. We introduce STAB, a specification-driven pipeline that generates test cases that expose algorithmic bottlenecks from a natural-language problem specification alone. STAB separates the task into constraint-bound maximization and adversarial structure injection. (i) The constraint saturator extracts constraints and resolves large admissible size assignments using rule-based saturation and CP-SAT optimization over related variables. (ii) The adversarial scenario injector retrieves implementation-level adversarial construction principles from a curated scenario catalog using keyword matching and K-nearest neighbors (KNN). STAB encodes the problem specification, resolved boundary, and retrieved construction principles into a structured generation specification, from which the LLM synthesizes a Python test case generator. On CodeContests, STAB raises the rate of generated test cases that expose algorithmic bottlenecks from 50.43% to 73.45% on average across open-source LLMs and from 57.45% to 71.85% on average across closed-source LLMs, with consistent gains across Python, Java, and C++. Our code is available at https://github.com/suhanmen/STAB.

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.

Simulation-based testing has become a standard approach to validating autonomous driving agents prior to real-world deployment. A high-quality validation campaign will exercise an agent in diverse contexts comprised of varying static environments, e.g., lanes, intersections, signage, and dynamic elements, e.g., vehicles and pedestrians. To achieve this, existing test generation techniques rely on template-based, manually constructed, or random scenario generation. When applied to validate formally specified safety requirements, such methods either require significant human effort or run the risk of missing important behavior related to the requirement. To address this gap, we present STADA, a Specification-based Test generation framework for Autonomous Driving Agents that systematically generates the space of scenarios defined by a formal specification expressed in temporal logic (LTLf). Given a specification, STADA constructs all distinct initial scenes, a diverse space of continuations of those scenes, and simulations that reflect the behaviors of the specification. Evaluation of STADA on a variety of LTLf specifications formalized in SCENEFLOW using three complementary coverage criteria demonstrates that STADA yields more than 2x higher coverage than the best baseline on the finest criteria and a 75% increase for the coarsest criteria. Moreover, it matches the coverage of the best baseline with 6 times fewer simulations. While set in the context of autonomous driving, the approach is applicable to other domains with rich simulation environments.

We present Test-Driven AI Agent Definition (TDAD), a methodology that treats agent prompts as compiled artifacts: engineers provide behavioral specifications, a coding agent converts them into executable tests, and a second coding agent iteratively refines the prompt until tests pass. Deploying tool-using LLM agents in production requires measurable behavioral compliance that current development practices cannot provide. Small prompt changes cause silent regressions, tool misuse goes undetected, and policy violations emerge only after deployment. To mitigate specification gaming, TDAD introduces three mechanisms: (1) visible/hidden test splits that withhold evaluation tests during compilation, (2) semantic mutation testing via a post-compilation agent that generates plausible faulty prompt variants, with the harness measuring whether the test suite detects them, and (3) spec evolution scenarios that quantify regression safety when requirements change. We evaluate TDAD on SpecSuite-Core, a benchmark of four deeply-specified agents spanning policy compliance, grounded analytics, runbook adherence, and deterministic enforcement. Across 24 independent trials, TDAD achieves 92% v1 compilation success with 97% mean hidden pass rate; evolved specifications compile at 58%, with most failed runs passing all visible tests except 1-2, and show 86-100% mutation scores, 78% v2 hidden pass rate, and 97% regression safety scores. The implementation is available as an open benchmark at https://github.com/f-labs-io/tdad-paper-code.

Empiric antibiotic prescribing in high-risk clinical contexts often requires decision making under conditions of incomplete information, where inappropriate coverage or unjustified escalation may compromise safety and antimicrobial stewardship. While clinical decision-support systems have been proposed to assist in this process, many approaches lack explicit governance and evaluation mechanisms defining scope, abstention conditions, recommendation permissibility, and expected system behavior. This work specifies a governance and evaluation framework for deterministic clinical decision-support systems operating under explicitly constrained scope. Deterministic behavior is adopted to ensure that identical inputs yield identical outputs, supporting transparency, auditability, and conservative decision support in high-risk prescribing contexts. The framework treats governance as a first-class design component, separating clinical decision logic from rule-based mechanisms that determine whether a recommendation may be issued. Explicit abstention, deterministic stewardship constraints, and exclusion rules are formalized as core constructs. The framework defines an evaluation methodology utilizing a fixed set of synthetic, mechanism-driven clinical cases with predefined expected behavior. This validation process focuses on behavioral alignment with specified rules rather than clinical effectiveness, predictive accuracy, or outcome optimization. Within this protocol, abstention is treated as a correct and intended outcome when governance conditions are not satisfied. The proposed framework provides a reproducible approach for specifying, governing, and inspecting deterministic clinical decision-support systems in empiric antibiotic prescribing contexts where transparency, auditability, and conservative behavior are prioritized.

We consider the automatic online synthesis of black-box test cases from functional requirements specified as automata for reactive implementations. The goal of the tester is to reach some given state, so as to satisfy a coverage criterion, while monitoring the violation of the requirements. We develop an approach based on Monte Carlo Tree Search, which is a classical technique in reinforcement learning for efficiently selecting promising inputs. Seeing the automata requirements as a game between the implementation and the tester, we develop a heuristic by biasing the search towards inputs that are promising in this game. We experimentally show that our heuristic accelerates the convergence of the Monte Carlo Tree Search algorithm, thus improving the performance of testing.