REVIEW 4 cited by
Domain Adaptation for Code Model-based Unit Test Case 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
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
Recently, deep learning-based test case generation approaches have been proposed to automate the generation of unit test cases. In this study, we leverage Transformer-based code models to generate unit tests with the help of Domain Adaptation (DA) at a project level. Specifically, we use CodeT5, a relatively small language model trained on source code data, and fine-tune it on the test generation task. Then, we apply domain adaptation to each target project data to learn project-specific knowledge (project-level DA). We use the Methods2test dataset to fine-tune CodeT5 for the test generation task and the Defects4j dataset for project-level domain adaptation and evaluation. We compare our approach with (a) CodeT5 fine-tuned on the test generation without DA, (b) the A3Test tool, and (c) GPT-4 on five projects from the Defects4j dataset. The results show that tests generated using DA can increase the line coverage by 18.62%, 19.88%, and 18.02% and mutation score by 16.45%, 16.01%, and 12.99% compared to the above (a), (b), and (c) baselines, respectively. The overall results show consistent improvements in metrics such as parse rate, compile rate, BLEU, and CodeBLEU. In addition, we show that our approach can be seen as a complementary solution alongside existing search-based test generation tools such as EvoSuite, to increase the overall coverage and mutation scores with an average of 34.42% and 6.8%, for line coverage and mutation score, respectively.
Forward citations
Cited by 4 Pith papers
-
Evaluating and Mitigating the Misguidance Effect of Buggy Code in LLM-Generated Unit Tests
Buggy code in prompts steers LLMs to write tests that validate the bug, and generating tests from an LLM-written spec docstring instead of the code reduces such misguided tests and increases bug-finding ones.
-
REACCEPT: Automated Co-evolution of Production and Test Code Based on Dynamic Validation and Large Language Models
REACCEPT uses GPT-4 with retrieval and compile/test/coverage feedback to identify and rewrite outdated Java test code, reporting higher success than prior methods.
-
Do Code LLMs Understand Design Patterns?
An empirical study of 11 code LLMs shows they frequently misclassify design patterns and generate code that diverges from pattern-consistent references.
-
The Current Challenges of Software Engineering in the Era of Large Language Models
The paper reports 26 challenges in LLM-based software engineering, grouped into seven aspects, derived from a structured discussion among 24 academics and practitioners.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.