Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Rethinking Testing for LLM Applications: Characteristics, Challenges, and a Lightweight Interaction Protocol

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 2508.20737 v1 pith:ER2ALC7H submitted 2025-08-28 cs.SE cs.AI

Rethinking Testing for LLM Applications: Characteristics, Challenges, and a Lightweight Interaction Protocol

classification cs.SE cs.AI
keywords layertestingemphtextbftextitapplicationschallengescore
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Applications of Large Language Models~(LLMs) have evolved from simple text generators into complex software systems that integrate retrieval augmentation, tool invocation, and multi-turn interactions. Their inherent non-determinism, dynamism, and context dependence pose fundamental challenges for quality assurance. This paper decomposes LLM applications into a three-layer architecture: \textbf{\textit{System Shell Layer}}, \textbf{\textit{Prompt Orchestration Layer}}, and \textbf{\textit{LLM Inference Core}}. We then assess the applicability of traditional software testing methods in each layer: directly applicable at the shell layer, requiring semantic reinterpretation at the orchestration layer, and necessitating paradigm shifts at the inference core. A comparative analysis of Testing AI methods from the software engineering community and safety analysis techniques from the AI community reveals structural disconnects in testing unit abstraction, evaluation metrics, and lifecycle management. We identify four fundamental differences that underlie 6 core challenges. To address these, we propose four types of collaborative strategies (\emph{Retain}, \emph{Translate}, \emph{Integrate}, and \emph{Runtime}) and explore a closed-loop, trustworthy quality assurance framework that combines pre-deployment validation with runtime monitoring. Based on these strategies, we offer practical guidance and a protocol proposal to support the standardization and tooling of LLM application testing. We propose a protocol \textbf{\textit{Agent Interaction Communication Language}} (AICL) that is used to communicate between AI agents. AICL has the test-oriented features and is easily integrated in the current agent framework.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. How to Interpret Agent Behavior

    cs.AI 2026-05 conditional novelty 6.0

    ACT*ONOMY is a Grounded-Theory-derived hierarchical taxonomy and open repository that enables systematic comparison and characterization of autonomous agent behavior across trajectories.

  2. AAFLOW: Scalable Patterns for Agentic AI Workflows

    cs.DC 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    AAFLOW is a unified distributed runtime that models agentic workflows as operators with a zero-copy data plane using Apache Arrow and Cylon, achieving up to 4.64x pipeline speedup through improved data flow and batching.