Showing 1–6 of 6 results for author: Ouédraogo, W C

Beyond Surface Similarity: Evaluating LLM-Based Test Refactorings with Structural and Semantic Awareness

Authors: Wendkûuni C. Ouédraogo, Yinghua Li, Xueqi Dang, Xin Zhou, Anil Koyuncu, Jacques Klein, David Lo, Tegawendé F. Bissyandé

Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly employed to automatically refactor unit tests, aiming to enhance readability, naming, and structural clarity while preserving functional behavior. However, evaluating such refactorings remains challenging: traditional metrics like CodeBLEU are overly sensitive to renaming and structural edits, whereas embedding-based similarities capture semantics but… ▽ More Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly employed to automatically refactor unit tests, aiming to enhance readability, naming, and structural clarity while preserving functional behavior. However, evaluating such refactorings remains challenging: traditional metrics like CodeBLEU are overly sensitive to renaming and structural edits, whereas embedding-based similarities capture semantics but ignore readability and modularity. We introduce CTSES, a composite metric that integrates CodeBLEU, METEOR, and ROUGE-L to balance behavior preservation, lexical quality, and structural alignment. CTSES is evaluated on over 5,000 test suites automatically refactored by GPT-4o and Mistral-Large-2407, using Chain-of-Thought prompting, across two established Java benchmarks: Defects4J and SF110. Our results show that CTSES yields more faithful and interpretable assessments, better aligned with developer expectations and human intuition than existing metrics. △ Less

Submitted 7 June, 2025; originally announced June 2025.

Mind the Gap: A Readability-Aware Metric for Test Code Complexity

Authors: Wendkûuni C. Ouédraogo, Yinghua Li, Xueqi Dang, Xin Zhou, Anil Koyuncu, Jacques Klein, David Lo, Tegawendé F. Bissyandé

Abstract: Automatically generated unit tests-from search-based tools like EvoSuite or LLMs-vary significantly in structure and readability. Yet most evaluations rely on metrics like Cyclomatic Complexity and Cognitive Complexity, designed for functional code rather than test code. Recent studies have shown that SonarSource's Cognitive Complexity metric assigns near-zero scores to LLM-generated tests, yet it… ▽ More Automatically generated unit tests-from search-based tools like EvoSuite or LLMs-vary significantly in structure and readability. Yet most evaluations rely on metrics like Cyclomatic Complexity and Cognitive Complexity, designed for functional code rather than test code. Recent studies have shown that SonarSource's Cognitive Complexity metric assigns near-zero scores to LLM-generated tests, yet its behavior on EvoSuite-generated tests and its applicability to test-specific code structures remain unexplored. We introduce CCTR, a Test-Aware Cognitive Complexity metric tailored for unit tests. CCTR integrates structural and semantic features like assertion density, annotation roles, and test composition patterns-dimensions ignored by traditional complexity models but critical for understanding test code. We evaluate 15,750 test suites generated by EvoSuite, GPT-4o, and Mistral Large-1024 across 350 classes from Defects4J and SF110. Results show CCTR effectively discriminates between structured and fragmented test suites, producing interpretable scores that better reflect developer-perceived effort. By bridging structural analysis and test readability, CCTR provides a foundation for more reliable evaluation and improvement of generated tests. We publicly release all data, prompts, and evaluation scripts to support replication. △ Less

Submitted 7 June, 2025; originally announced June 2025.

Test smells in LLM-Generated Unit Tests

Authors: Wendkûuni C. Ouédraogo, Yinghua Li, Kader Kaboré, Xunzhu Tang, Anil Koyuncu, Jacques Klein, David Lo, Tegawendé F. Bissyandé

Abstract: The use of Large Language Models (LLMs) in automated test generation is gaining popularity, with much of the research focusing on metrics like compilability rate, code coverage and bug detection. However, an equally important quality metric is the presence of test smells design flaws or anti patterns in test code that hinder maintainability and readability. In this study, we explore the diffusion… ▽ More The use of Large Language Models (LLMs) in automated test generation is gaining popularity, with much of the research focusing on metrics like compilability rate, code coverage and bug detection. However, an equally important quality metric is the presence of test smells design flaws or anti patterns in test code that hinder maintainability and readability. In this study, we explore the diffusion of test smells in LLM generated unit test suites and compare them to those found in human written ones. We analyze a benchmark of 20,500 LLM-generated test suites produced by four models (GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Mistral 7B, and Mixtral 8x7B) across five prompt engineering techniques, alongside a dataset of 780,144 human written test suites from 34,637 projects. Leveraging TsDetect, a state of the art tool capable of detecting 21 different types of test smells, we identify and analyze the prevalence and co-occurrence of various test smells in both human written and LLM-generated test suites. Our findings reveal new insights into the strengths and limitations of LLMs in test generation. First, regarding prevalence, we observe that LLMs frequently generate tests with common test smells, such as Magic Number Test and Assertion Roulette. Second, in terms of co occurrence, certain smells, like Long Test and Useless Test, tend to co occur in LLM-generated suites, influenced by specific prompt techniques. Third, we find that project complexity and LLM specific factors, including model size and context length, significantly affect the prevalence of test smells. Finally, the patterns of test smells in LLM-generated tests often mirror those in human-written tests, suggesting potential data leakage from training datasets. These insights underscore the need to refine LLM-based test generation for cleaner code and suggest improvements in both LLM capabilities and software testing practices. △ Less

Submitted 14 October, 2024; originally announced October 2024.

Large-scale, Independent and Comprehensive study of the power of LLMs for test case generation

Authors: Wendkûuni C. Ouédraogo, Kader Kaboré, Yinghua Li, Haoye Tian, Anil Koyuncu, Jacques Klein, David Lo, Tegawendé F. Bissyandé

Abstract: Unit testing is essential for software reliability, yet manual test creation is time-consuming and often neglected. Although search-based software testing improves efficiency, it produces tests with poor readability and maintainability. Although LLMs show promise for test generation, existing research lacks comprehensive evaluation across execution-driven assessment, reasoning-based prompting, and… ▽ More Unit testing is essential for software reliability, yet manual test creation is time-consuming and often neglected. Although search-based software testing improves efficiency, it produces tests with poor readability and maintainability. Although LLMs show promise for test generation, existing research lacks comprehensive evaluation across execution-driven assessment, reasoning-based prompting, and real-world testing scenarios. This study presents the first large-scale empirical evaluation of LLM-generated unit tests at the class level, systematically analyzing four state-of-the-art models - GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Mistral 7B, and Mixtral 8x7B - against EvoSuite across 216,300 test cases from Defects4J, SF110, and CMD (a dataset mitigating LLM training data leakage). We evaluate five prompting techniques - Zero-Shot Learning (ZSL), Few-Shot Learning (FSL), Chain-of-Thought (CoT), Tree-of-Thought (ToT), and Guided Tree-of-Thought (GToT) - assessing syntactic correctness, compilability, hallucination-driven failures, readability, code coverage metrics, and fault detection capabilities. Our findings challenge prior claims that in-context learning is ineffective for test generation in code-specialized LLMs. Reasoning-based prompting - particularly GToT - significantly enhances test reliability, compilability, and structural adherence in general-purpose LLMs. However, hallucination-driven failures remain a persistent challenge, manifesting as non-existent symbol references, incorrect API calls, and fabricated dependencies, resulting in high compilation failure rates (up to 86%). Execution-based classification and mutation testing reveal that many failing tests stem from hallucinated dependencies, limiting effective fault detection. △ Less

Submitted 5 July, 2025; v1 submitted 28 June, 2024; originally announced July 2024.

Enriching Automatic Test Case Generation by Extracting Relevant Test Inputs from Bug Reports

Authors: Wendkûuni C. Ouédraogo, Laura Plein, Kader Kaboré, Andrew Habib, Jacques Klein, David Lo, Tegawendé F. Bissyandé

Abstract: The quality of software is closely tied to the effectiveness of the tests it undergoes. Manual test writing, though crucial for bug detection, is time-consuming, which has driven significant research into automated test case generation. However, current methods often struggle to generate relevant inputs, limiting the effectiveness of the tests produced. To address this, we introduce BRMiner, a nov… ▽ More The quality of software is closely tied to the effectiveness of the tests it undergoes. Manual test writing, though crucial for bug detection, is time-consuming, which has driven significant research into automated test case generation. However, current methods often struggle to generate relevant inputs, limiting the effectiveness of the tests produced. To address this, we introduce BRMiner, a novel approach that leverages Large Language Models (LLMs) in combination with traditional techniques to extract relevant inputs from bug reports, thereby enhancing automated test generation tools. In this study, we evaluate BRMiner using the Defects4J benchmark and test generation tools such as EvoSuite and Randoop. Our results demonstrate that BRMiner achieves a Relevant Input Rate (RIR) of 60.03% and a Relevant Input Extraction Accuracy Rate (RIEAR) of 31.71%, significantly outperforming methods that rely on LLMs alone. The integration of BRMiner's input enhances EvoSuite ability to generate more effective test, leading to increased code coverage, with gains observed in branch, instruction, method, and line coverage across multiple projects. Furthermore, BRMiner facilitated the detection of 58 unique bugs, including those that were missed by traditional baseline approaches. Overall, BRMiner's combination of LLM filtering with traditional input extraction techniques significantly improves the relevance and effectiveness of automated test generation, advancing the detection of bugs and enhancing code coverage, thereby contributing to higher-quality software development. △ Less

Submitted 19 March, 2025; v1 submitted 22 December, 2023; originally announced December 2023.

Comments: Accepted at Empirical Software Engineering (EMSE) journal on 4 March 2025

Automatic Generation of Test Cases based on Bug Reports: a Feasibility Study with Large Language Models

Authors: Laura Plein, Wendkûuni C. Ouédraogo, Jacques Klein, Tegawendé F. Bissyandé

Abstract: Software testing is a core discipline in software engineering where a large array of research results has been produced, notably in the area of automatic test generation. Because existing approaches produce test cases that either can be qualified as simple (e.g. unit tests) or that require precise specifications, most testing procedures still rely on test cases written by humans to form test suite… ▽ More Software testing is a core discipline in software engineering where a large array of research results has been produced, notably in the area of automatic test generation. Because existing approaches produce test cases that either can be qualified as simple (e.g. unit tests) or that require precise specifications, most testing procedures still rely on test cases written by humans to form test suites. Such test suites, however, are incomplete: they only cover parts of the project or they are produced after the bug is fixed. Yet, several research challenges, such as automatic program repair, and practitioner processes, build on the assumption that available test suites are sufficient. There is thus a need to break existing barriers in automatic test case generation. While prior work largely focused on random unit testing inputs, we propose to consider generating test cases that realistically represent complex user execution scenarios, which reveal buggy behaviour. Such scenarios are informally described in bug reports, which should therefore be considered as natural inputs for specifying bug-triggering test cases. In this work, we investigate the feasibility of performing this generation by leveraging large language models (LLMs) and using bug reports as inputs. Our experiments include the use of ChatGPT, as an online service, as well as CodeGPT, a code-related pre-trained LLM that was fine-tuned for our task. Overall, we experimentally show that bug reports associated to up to 50% of Defects4J bugs can prompt ChatGPT to generate an executable test case. We show that even new bug reports can indeed be used as input for generating executable test cases. Finally, we report experimental results which confirm that LLM-generated test cases are immediately useful in software engineering tasks such as fault localization as well as patch validation in automated program repair. △ Less

Submitted 10 October, 2023; originally announced October 2023.