Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

TestGenEval: A Real World Unit Test Generation and Test Completion Benchmark

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2410.00752 v2 pith:OHCLE5D4 submitted 2024-10-01 cs.SE

classification cs.SE
keywords testcodecompletiongenerationmodelstestgenevalauthoringcoverage
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Code generation models can help improve many common software tasks ranging from code completion to defect prediction. Most of the existing benchmarks for code generation LLMs focus on code authoring or code completion. Surprisingly, there has been far less effort dedicated to benchmarking software testing, despite the strong correlation between well-tested software and effective bug detection. To address this gap, we create and release TestGenEval, a large-scale benchmark to measure test generation performance. Based on SWEBench, TestGenEval comprises 68,647 tests from 1,210 code and test file pairs across 11 well-maintained Python repositories. It covers initial tests authoring, test suite completion, and code coverage improvements. Test authoring simulates the process of a developer writing a test suite from scratch, while test completion mimics the scenario where a developer aims to improve the coverage of an existing test suite. We evaluate several popular models, with sizes ranging from 7B to 405B parameters. Our detailed analysis highlights TestGenEval's contribution to a comprehensive evaluation of test generation performance. In particular, models struggle to generate high-coverage test suites, with the best model, GPT-4o, achieving an average coverage of only 35.2%. This is primarily due to models struggling to reason about execution, and their frequent assertion errors when addressing complex code paths.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. ViseGPT: Towards Better Alignment of LLM-generated Data Wrangling Scripts and User Prompts

    cs.HC 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    ViseGPT automatically converts user prompts into test cases and visualizes which steps of an LLM-generated data wrangling script pass or fail.

  2. Benchmarking LLMs for Unit Test Generation from Real-World Functions

    cs.SE 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new decontaminated benchmark of complex Python functions shows LLMs generate far fewer correct, covering, and bug-killing unit tests than on older benchmarks.

  3. SimdBench: Benchmarking Large Language Models for SIMD-Intrinsic Code Generation

    cs.SE 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    All 18 evaluated LLMs pass fewer SIMD-intrinsic code-generation tests than scalar-code tests on the new SimdBench benchmark, with the largest drops on SVE and RVV.

  4. FrontendBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs on Front-End Development via Automatic Evaluation

    cs.SE 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new benchmark adds 148 interactive front-end development tasks with automated sandbox tests, reporting a 90.54% agreement rate with human evaluation across four LLMs.

Pith tools