Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

A Multi-Agent Approach for REST API Testing with Semantic Graphs and LLM-Driven Inputs

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 2411.07098 v2 pith:KO7PWKTJ submitted 2024-11-11 cs.SE cs.AI

classification cs.SEcs.AI
keywords resttestingautoresttestagentsapproachblack-boxcoveragellms
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

As modern web services increasingly rely on REST APIs, their thorough testing has become crucial. Furthermore, the advent of REST API documentation languages, such as the OpenAPI Specification, has led to the emergence of many black-box REST API testing tools. However, these tools often focus on individual test elements in isolation (e.g., APIs, parameters, values), resulting in lower coverage and less effectiveness in fault detection. To address these limitations, we present AutoRestTest, the first black-box tool to adopt a dependency-embedded multi-agent approach for REST API testing that integrates multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) with a semantic property dependency graph (SPDG) and Large Language Models (LLMs). Our approach treats REST API testing as a separable problem, where four agents -- API, dependency, parameter, and value agents -- collaborate to optimize API exploration. LLMs handle domain-specific value generation, the SPDG model simplifies the search space for dependencies using a similarity score between API operations, and MARL dynamically optimizes the agents' behavior. Our evaluation of AutoRestTest on 12 real-world REST services shows that it outperforms the four leading black-box REST API testing tools, including those assisted by RESTGPT (which generates realistic test inputs using LLMs), in terms of code coverage, operation coverage, and fault detection. Notably, AutoRestTest is the only tool able to trigger an internal server error in the Spotify service. Our ablation study illustrates that each component of AutoRestTest -- the SPDG, the LLM, and the agent-learning mechanism -- contributes to its overall effectiveness.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. SAINT: Service-level Integration Test Generation with Program Analysis and LLM-based Agents

    cs.SE 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    SAINT automatically generates both endpoint-level and scenario-based REST API tests for enterprise Java apps using static analysis and LLM agents, outperforming EvoMaster on code coverage in several benchmarks.

  2. 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.

  3. A Survey of Reinforcement Learning for Software Engineering

    cs.SE 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A systematic survey of 115 reinforcement learning for software engineering papers finds most activity in quality assurance and test generation, with sparse coverage of requirements, management, and advanced RL algorithms.

Pith tools