Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

What You See Is What You Get: Attention-based Self-guided Automatic Unit Test Generation

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 2412.00828 v1 pith:T4KJPJ66 submitted 2024-12-01 cs.SE

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

Software defects heavily affect software's functionalities and may cause huge losses. Recently, many AI-based approaches have been proposed to detect defects, which can be divided into two categories: software defect prediction and automatic unit test generation. While these approaches have made great progress in software defect detection, they still have several limitations in practical application, including the low confidence of prediction models and the inefficiency of unit testing models. To address these limitations, we propose a WYSIWYG (i.e., What You See Is What You Get) approach: Attention-based Self-guided Automatic Unit Test GenERation (AUGER), which contains two stages: defect detection and error triggering. In the former stage, AUGER first detects the proneness of defects. Then, in the latter stage, it guides to generate unit tests for triggering such an error with the help of critical information obtained by the former stage. To evaluate the effectiveness of AUGER, we conduct a large-scale experiment by comparing with the state-of-the-art (SOTA) approaches on the widely used datasets (i.e., Bears, Bugs.jar, and Defects4J). AUGER makes great improvements by 4.7% to 35.3% and 17.7% to 40.4% in terms of F1-score and Precision in defect detection, and can trigger 23 to 84 more errors than SOTAs in unit test generation. Besides, we also conduct a further study to verify the generalization in practical usage by collecting a new dataset from real-world projects.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID 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. Uncovering Business Logic Bugs via Semantics-Driven Unit Test Generation

    cs.SE 2026-04 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    SeGa extracts business semantics from requirements to generate unit tests that detect 22-25 more real-world business logic bugs than prior LLM-based methods in industrial Go projects.

  2. 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.

  3. VISCA: Inferring Component Abstractions for Automated End-to-End Testing

    cs.SE 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    VISCA converts webpages into a semantic component abstraction and uses it as context for LLM-generated end-to-end tests, reporting 92% average feature coverage on E2EBench.

  4. Rethinking Autonomy: Preventing Failures in AI-Driven Software Engineering

    cs.SE 2025-08 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

    A survey-plus-benchmark argues that current code LLMs fail safety thresholds and need stronger governance, but the supporting experiment is incomplete.

Pith tools