Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 minor 1 cited by

TestMap records the full lifecycle of every foundation-model-generated test candidate to make validation observable and repeatable.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.3

2026-06-27 15:12 UTC pith:GJBLU2YE

load-bearing objection TestMap is a straightforward infrastructure prototype for lifecycle tracking of FM-generated tests in .NET, presented as a design case rather than an evaluated system.

arxiv 2606.10211 v1 pith:GJBLU2YE submitted 2026-06-08 cs.SE

TestMap: Evidence Infrastructure for Foundation-Model-Assisted Test Generation

Hunter Leary , Luke Hanuska , Chris Brown This is my paper
classification cs.SE
keywords test generationfoundation modelssoftware testingevidence infrastructureC#.NETmutation testingtest automation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper introduces TestMap as infrastructure that automates repository analysis, source-test mapping, baseline runs, metric collection, coverage, mutation testing, generation, validation, and repair for C#/.NET code. It treats generated tests as both code and validation artifacts that must themselves be evaluated before trust. By logging every intermediate result—failed attempts, repairs, low-impact cases, and evidence-positive outcomes—rather than only final passing tests, the system aims to expose model limits, context gaps, repair costs, and possible faults. A sympathetic reader would care because fragmented tooling currently makes it hard to decide which generated tests are correct, useful, or maintainable enough to integrate.

Core claim

TestMap is an open-source prototype that unifies build systems, test runners, coverage tools, mutation tools, and static analyzers into one evidence model for foundation-model-assisted test generation; it records the complete lifecycle of each candidate—including failed, repaired, low-impact, and evidence-positive outcomes—so that generated tests become observable, repeatable, and comparable across repositories, models, prompts, and strategies.

What carries the argument

TestMap infrastructure, which automates the end-to-end pipeline from repository analysis through model-guided generation, validation, and repair while persisting evidence for every intermediate test candidate.

Load-bearing premise

Unifying the fragmented tools will yield actionable evidence on test correctness and usefulness without introducing new flakiness or attribution errors.

What would settle it

A controlled comparison showing that the unified TestMap pipeline produces more flakiness, more misattributed metrics, or less usable evidence than the same tasks performed with the original separate tools.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Intermediate outcomes can directly reveal model limitations, missing context, and repair costs for specific generation strategies.
  • Evidence collected this way supports direct comparison of models, prompts, and strategies on the same repositories.
  • The recorded lifecycle makes it possible to study how often generated tests require repair or exhibit low impact before integration.
  • Repository-specific experiment tracking allows repeatable runs across different C#/.NET codebases.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Similar infrastructure could be adapted to other languages once the core evidence model is stable.
  • The approach may surface previously hidden faults in the system under test when generated tests are executed at scale.
  • Developer acceptance will depend on whether the collected evidence reduces the manual review burden enough to offset added execution cost.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

0 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces TestMap, an open-source infrastructure prototype for automating evidence-backed foundation-model-assisted test generation for C#/.NET repositories. It supports repository analysis, source-test mapping, baseline execution, code metric collection, test smell detection, coverage measurement, mutation testing, model-guided test generation, validation, repair, and experiment tracking. The core feature is recording the lifecycle of each generated test candidate, including failed, repaired, low-impact, and evidence-positive outcomes, to make generated tests observable, repeatable, and comparable. The work is framed as a design case describing the architecture and evidence model, with discussion of lessons learned and open challenges such as oracle quality, metric attribution, flakiness, execution cost, and developer acceptance.

Significance. If the prototype operates as described, TestMap would provide a much-needed unified platform for the fragmented validation process of FM-generated tests. Recording intermediate lifecycle outcomes could offer valuable insights into model limitations, repair costs, and potential system faults. The open-source release and explicit acknowledgment of open challenges are positive aspects that enhance the contribution's utility for the software engineering community working on automated test generation.

minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The description of the validation process consists of a single long sentence that lists many components; splitting it would improve clarity and flow.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: The term 'evidence positive outcomes' is used without a short inline definition or example, which weakens immediate comprehension of the evidence model.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and positive review of TestMap, including recognition of its potential as a unified platform for evidence-backed validation of foundation-model-generated tests and the explicit acknowledgment of open challenges. The recommendation for minor revision is noted. No major comments were provided in the report, so we have no specific points to address point-by-point. We will incorporate any minor suggestions during revision if they arise in subsequent feedback.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity identified

full rationale

The paper is a design/infrastructure contribution describing TestMap's architecture, evidence model, and lifecycle tracking for FM-generated tests. It contains no equations, derivations, fitted parameters, quantitative predictions, or theorems. The text frames itself explicitly as a 'design case' rather than an empirical claim, acknowledges open challenges without asserting resolution, and advances no result whose validity depends on an untested assumption or self-citation chain. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to its inputs; the work is self-contained as a tool prototype description with no internal circular reasoning possible.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters, mathematical axioms, or invented entities are present; this is a description of a software engineering tool.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5828 in / 1112 out tokens · 25458 ms · 2026-06-27T15:12:31.860308+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Foundation models (FMs) can generate plausible unit tests, but determining whether those tests are correct, useful, maintainable, and worth integrating remains difficult. Generated tests must be mapped to the code they target, inserted into real projects, built, executed, measured against the baseline suite, repaired when necessary, and compared across models and generation strategies. This validation process is fragmented across build systems, test runners, coverage tools, mutation tools, static analyzers, and experiment scripts. The problem is especially important because generated tests are both code artifacts and validation artifacts: they must themselves be validated before they can be trusted as evidence about the system under test. This paper presents TestMap, an open-source infrastructure prototype that automates evidence-backed foundation-model-assisted test generation for C#/.NET repositories. TestMap supports repository analysis, source-test mapping, baseline execution, code metric collection, test smell detection, coverage measurement, mutation testing, model-guided test generation, validation, repair, and repository-specific experiment tracking. Rather than reporting only final passing tests, TestMap records the lifecycle of each generated candidate, including failed, repaired, low-impact, and evidence positive outcomes. These intermediate outcomes can reveal model limitations, missing context, repair cost, toolchain inefficiencies, or possible faults in the system under test. Using TestMap as a design case, we describe the architecture and evidence model needed to make generated tests observable, repeatable, and comparable across repositories, models, prompts, and generation strategies. We conclude with lessons learned and open challenges, including oracle and assertion quality, metric attribution, test maintainability, flakiness, execution cost, and developer acceptance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.10211 by Chris Brown, Hunter Leary, Luke Hanuska.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of TestMap Generation Pipeline candidate is linked to structured signals about its target, generation context, execution behavior, testing contribution, quality indicators, failure history, repair history, and pipeline outcome. These signals do not prove that a generated test is correct; rather, they make the candidate inspectable and comparable. The generated test candidate is the central evidenc… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Validation Evidence in LLM Repair Agents: How Much of What Passes Actually Tests the Bug?

    cs.SE 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    By replaying each validation command on buggy, candidate, and gold-fix code, this study finds 46% of positive checks do not discriminate the bug, and a reminder alone explains part of the feedback benefit.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    https://www.crossover.com/resources/top-10-in-demand-programming- languages-for-2026-updated

    Top 10 in-demand programming languages for 2026 [updated].Crossover Blog (2026). https://www.crossover.com/resources/top-10-in-demand-programming- languages-for-2026-updated

    2026

  2. [2]

    Alshahwan, N., Chheda, J., Finogenova, A., Gokkaya, B., Harman, M., Harper, I., Marginean, A., Sengupta, S., and W ang, E.Automated Unit Test Improve- ment using Large Language Models at Meta. InCompanion Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on the Foundations of Software Engineering (New York, NY, USA, July 2024), FSE 2024, Association fo...

    2024

  3. [3]

    In2023 IEEE Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation (ICST)(Apr

    Alshahwan, N., Harman, M., and Marginean, A.Software Testing Research Challenges: An Industrial Perspective. In2023 IEEE Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation (ICST)(Apr. 2023), pp. 1–10. ISSN: 2159-4848. TestMap: Evidence Infrastructure for Foundation-Model-Assisted Test Generation arXiv, 2026,

    2023

  4. [4]

    D.CoverUp: Effective High Coverage Test Generation for Python.Proceedings of the ACM on Software Engineering 2, FSE (June 2025), 2897–2919

    Altmayer Pizzorno, J., and Berger, E. D.CoverUp: Effective High Coverage Test Generation for Python.Proceedings of the ACM on Software Engineering 2, FSE (June 2025), 2897–2919

    2025

  5. [5]

    InProceedings of the 11th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories(Hyderabad India, May 2014), ACM, pp

    Anderson, J., Salem, S., and Do, H.Improving the effectiveness of test suite through mining historical data. InProceedings of the 11th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories(Hyderabad India, May 2014), ACM, pp. 142–151

    2014

  6. [6]

    M.Evidence-Based Management: How to Use Evidence to Make Better Organizational Decisions

    Barends, E., and Rousseau, D. M.Evidence-Based Management: How to Use Evidence to Make Better Organizational Decisions. Kogan Page, Limited, London, 2018

    2018

  7. [7]

    T., Harman, M., McMinn, P., Shahbaz, M., and Yoo, S.The Oracle Problem in Software Testing: A Survey.IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 41, 5 (May 2015), 507–525

    Barr, E. T., Harman, M., McMinn, P., Shahbaz, M., and Yoo, S.The Oracle Problem in Software Testing: A Survey.IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 41, 5 (May 2015), 507–525

    2015

  8. [8]

    InProceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Large Language Models for Code(Lisbon Portugal, Apr

    Bhatia, S., Gandhi, T., Kumar, D., and Jalote, P.Unit Test Generation using Generative AI : A Comparative Performance Analysis of Autogeneration Tools. InProceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Large Language Models for Code(Lisbon Portugal, Apr. 2024), ACM, pp. 54–61

    2024

  9. [9]

    Putting research in place: an innovative approach to providing contextualized evidence synthesis for decision makers.Systematic Reviews 6, 1 (Dec

    Bornstein, S., Baker, R., Navarro, P., Mackey, S., Speed, D., and Sullivan, M. Putting research in place: an innovative approach to providing contextualized evidence synthesis for decision makers.Systematic Reviews 6, 1 (Dec. 2017), 218

    2017

  10. [10]

    InCompanion Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on the Foundations of Software Engineering(Porto de Galinhas Brazil, July 2024), ACM, pp

    Chen, Y., Hu, Z., Zhi, C., Han, J., Deng, S., and Yin, J.ChatUniTest: A Framework for LLM-Based Test Generation. InCompanion Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on the Foundations of Software Engineering(Porto de Galinhas Brazil, July 2024), ACM, pp. 572–576

    2024

  11. [11]

    In2025 IEEE/ACM 47th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE)(Apr

    Cheng, X., Sang, F., Zhai, Y., Zhang, X., and Kim, T.Rug: Turbo Llm for Rust Unit Test Generation. In2025 IEEE/ACM 47th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE)(Apr. 2025), pp. 2983–2995. ISSN: 1558-1225. [12]Daka, E., and Fraser, G.A Survey on Unit Testing Practices and Problems. In 2014 IEEE 25th International Symposium on Software Reliab...

    2025

  12. [12]

    Daka, E., Rojas, J. M., and Fraser, G.Generating unit tests with descriptive names or: would you name your children thing1 and thing2? InProceedings of the 26th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Anal- ysis(New York, NY, USA, July 2017), ISSTA 2017, Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 57–67

    2017

  13. [13]

    2005), 58–65

    Dyba, T., Kitchenham, B., and Jorgensen, M.Evidence-based software engi- neering for practitioners.IEEE Software 22, 1 (Jan. 2005), 58–65

    2005

  14. [14]

    In2023 38th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE)(Luxembourg, Luxembourg, Sept

    Feldt, R., Kang, S., Yoon, J., and Yoo, S.Towards Autonomous Testing Agents via Conversational Large Language Models. In2023 38th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE)(Luxembourg, Luxembourg, Sept. 2023), IEEE, pp. 1688–1693

    2023

  15. [15]

    InProceedings of the 19th ACM SIGSOFT symposium and the 13th European conference on Foundations of software engineering(New York, NY, USA, Sept

    Fraser, G., and Arcuri, A.EvoSuite: automatic test suite generation for object- oriented software. InProceedings of the 19th ACM SIGSOFT symposium and the 13th European conference on Foundations of software engineering(New York, NY, USA, Sept. 2011), ESEC/FSE ’11, Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 416–419

    2011

  16. [16]

    2015), 1594–1605

    Freund, L.Contextualizing the information-seeking behavior of software en- gineers.Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 66, 8 (Aug. 2015), 1594–1605

    2015

  17. [17]

    V.When and what to automate in software testing? A multi-vocal literature review.Information and Software Technology 76 (Aug

    Garousi, V., and Mäntylä, M. V.When and what to automate in software testing? A multi-vocal literature review.Information and Software Technology 76 (Aug. 2016), 92–117

    2016

  18. [18]

    Octoverse: A new developer joins GitHub every second as AI leads TypeScript to #1, Oct

    GitHub Staff. Octoverse: A new developer joins GitHub every second as AI leads TypeScript to #1, Oct. 2025. [20]Google. DORA - State of AI-assisted Software Development 2025, 2025

    2025

  19. [19]

    L., Nguyen, D

    Hai, N. L., Nguyen, D. M., and Bui, N. D. Q.On the Impacts of Contexts on Repository-Level Code Generation. InFindings of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics: NAACL 2025(Albuquerque, New Mexico, 2025), Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 1496–1524

    2025

  20. [20]

    2015), IEEE, pp

    Hemmati, H.How Effective Are Code Coverage Criteria? In2015 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Software Quality, Reliability and Security(Vancouver, BC, Canada, Aug. 2015), IEEE, pp. 151–156

    2015

  21. [21]

    https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe- index/

    Jansen, P.Tiobe index for january 2026, 2026. https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe- index/

    2026

  22. [22]

    Artificial Intelligence - The State of Developer Ecosystem in 2025, 2025

    JetBrains. Artificial Intelligence - The State of Developer Ecosystem in 2025, 2025

    2025

  23. [23]

    D., Venolia, G., and DeLine, R.Maintaining mental models: a study of developer work habits

    LaToza, T. D., Venolia, G., and DeLine, R.Maintaining mental models: a study of developer work habits. InProceedings of the 28th international conference on Software engineering(Shanghai China, May 2006), ACM, pp. 492–501

    2006

  24. [24]

    S., and Zhang, L.Is Your Code Generated by ChatGPT Really Correct? Rigorous Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code Gen- eration

    Liu, J., W ang, Y., Xia, C. S., and Zhang, L.Is Your Code Generated by ChatGPT Really Correct? Rigorous Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code Gen- eration. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36(New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 2023), Neural Information Processing Systems Foundation, Inc. (NeurIPS), pp. 21558–21572

    2023

  25. [25]

    S., and Nagappan, M.Design choices made by LLM-based test generators prevent them from finding bugs, Dec

    Mathews, N. S., and Nagappan, M.Design choices made by LLM-based test generators prevent them from finding bugs, Dec. 2024. arXiv:2412.14137

    work page arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    S., and Nagappan, M.When AI-Generated Unit Tests Validate Bugs: The Risk of Faulty Assertions.IEEE Software 43, 1 (Jan

    Mathews, N. S., and Nagappan, M.When AI-Generated Unit Tests Validate Bugs: The Risk of Faulty Assertions.IEEE Software 43, 1 (Jan. 2026), 98–104

    2026

  27. [27]

    N., Barr, E

    Meyer, A. N., Barr, E. T., Bird, C., and Zimmermann, T.Today Was a Good Day: The Daily Life of Software Developers.IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 47, 5 (May 2021), 863–880

    2021

  28. [28]

    Molina, F., Gorla, A., and d’Amorim, M.Test Oracle Automation in the Era of LLMs.ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 34, 5 (June 2025), 1–24

    2025

  29. [29]

    Nashid, N., Bouzenia, I., Pradel, M., and Mesbah, A.Issue2Test: Generating Reproducing Test Cases from Issue Reports, 2025

    2025

  30. [30]

    C., Kaboré, A

    Ouédraogo, W. C., Kaboré, A. K., Li, Y., Tian, H., Koyuncu, A., Klein, J., Lo, D., and Bissyandé, T. F.Prompt engineering in LLMs for automated unit test generation: A large-scale study.Empirical Software Engineering 31, 4 (July 2026), 103

    2026

  31. [31]

    K., Ernst, M

    Pacheco, C., Lahiri, S. K., Ernst, M. D., and Ball, T.Feedback-Directed Random Test Generation. InProceedings of the 29th international conference on Software Engineering(USA, May 2007), ICSE ’07, IEEE Computer Society, pp. 75–84

    2007

  32. [32]

    Paduraru, C., Stefanescu, A., and Jianu, A.Unit Test Generation using Large Language Models for Unity Game Development. InProceedings of the 1st ACM International Workshop on Foundations of Applied Software Engineering for Games (New York, NY, USA, July 2024), FaSE4Games 2024, Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 7–13

    2024

  33. [33]

    P., Cruzes, D

    Passos, C., Braun, A. P., Cruzes, D. S., and Mendonca, M.Analyzing the Impact of Beliefs in Software Project Practices. In2011 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement(Sept. 2011), pp. 444–452. ISSN: 1949-3789

    2011

  34. [34]

    P., Akanda, M

    Paul, P. P., Akanda, M. T., Ullah, M. R., Mondal, D., Chowdhury, N. S., and Tawsif, F. M.xNose: A Test Smell Detector for C#. InProceedings of the 2024 IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings(New York, NY, USA, May 2024), ICSE-Companion ’24, Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 370–371

    2024

  35. [35]

    1986), 242–258

    Pennington, N., and Hastie, R.Evidence evaluation in complex decision making.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51, 2 (Aug. 1986), 242–258

    1986

  36. [36]

    Petrović, G., Ivanković, M., Fraser, G., and Just, R.Does Mutation Testing Improve Testing Practices? In2021 IEEE/ACM 43rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE)(May 2021), pp. 910–921. ISSN: 1558-1225

    2021

  37. [37]

    V., Ferrari, F

    Pizzoleto, A. V., Ferrari, F. C., Offutt, J., Fernandes, L., and Ribeiro, M. A systematic literature review of techniques and metrics to reduce the cost of mutation testing.Journal of Systems and Software 157(Nov. 2019), 110388

    2019

  38. [38]

    L., and Hellendoorn, V

    Rao, N., Jain, K., Alon, U., Goues, C. L., and Hellendoorn, V. J.CAT-LM Training Language Models on Aligned Code And Tests. In2023 38th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE)(Sept. 2023), pp. 409–420. ISSN: 2643-1572

    2023

  39. [39]

    2025), 1463

    Rehan, S., Al-Bander, B., and Al-Said Ahmad, A.Harnessing Large Language Models for Automated Software Testing: A Leap Towards Scalable Test Case Generation.Electronics 14, 7 (Apr. 2025), 1463

    2025

  40. [40]

    Understanding evidence: Contextual evidence module summary

    Center for Disease Control. Understanding evidence: Contextual evidence module summary. Retrieved from: https://vetoviolence.cdc.gov/apps/evidence/ docs/Contextual_82312.pdf

  41. [41]

    2012), 1801–1817

    Salvaneschi, G., Ghezzi, C., and Pradella, M.Context-oriented programming: A software engineering perspective.Journal of Systems and Software 85, 8 (Aug. 2012), 1801–1817

    2012

  42. [42]

    In2025 2nd IEEE/ACM International Conference on AI-powered Software (AIware)(Seoul, Korea, Republic of, Nov

    Santana, D., Magalhaes, C., and De Souza Santos, R.Software Testing with Large Language Models: An Interview Study with Practitioners. In2025 2nd IEEE/ACM International Conference on AI-powered Software (AIware)(Seoul, Korea, Republic of, Nov. 2025), IEEE, pp. 96–104

    2025

  43. [43]

    2024), 85–105

    Schäfer, M., Nadi, S., Eghbali, A., and Tip, F.An Empirical Evaluation of Using Large Language Models for Automated Unit Test Generation.IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 50, 1 (Jan. 2024), 85–105

    2024

  44. [44]

    M., Galeotti, J

    Shamshiri, S., Rojas, J. M., Galeotti, J. P., W alkinshaw, N., and Fraser, G. How Do Automatically Generated Unit Tests Influence Software Maintenance? In2018 IEEE 11th International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation (ICST)(Apr. 2018), pp. 250–261

    2018

  45. [45]

    In2018 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME)(Madrid, Sept

    Spadini, D., Palomba, F., Zaidman, A., Bruntink, M., and Bacchelli, A.On the Relation of Test Smells to Software Code Quality. In2018 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME)(Madrid, Sept. 2018), IEEE, pp. 1–12. [48]StackOverflow. 2025 Stack Overflow Developer Survey, Nov. 2025

    2018

  46. [46]

    d.Pex – White Box Test Generation for .NET

    Tillmann, N., and Halleux, P. d.Pex – White Box Test Generation for .NET. pp. 134–153

  47. [47]

    K., and Sundaresan, N

    Tufano, M., Drain, D., Svyatkovskiy, A., Deng, S. K., and Sundaresan, N. Unit Test Case Generation with Transformers and Focal Context, 2020

    2020

  48. [48]

    InProceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Automation of Software Test(New York, NY, USA, July 2022), AST ’22, Association for Computing Machinery, pp

    Tufano, M., Drain, D., Svyatkovskiy, A., and Sundaresan, N.Generating accurate assert statements for unit test cases using pretrained transformers. InProceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Automation of Software Test(New York, NY, USA, July 2022), AST ’22, Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 54–64

    2022

  49. [49]

    W ang, S., Shrestha, N., Subburaman, A. K., W ang, J., Wei, M., and Nagappan, N.Automatic Unit Test Generation for Machine Learning Libraries: How Far Are We? InProceedings of the 43rd International Conference on Software Engineering arXiv, 2026, Leary et al. (Madrid, Spain, Nov. 2021), ICSE ’21, IEEE Press, pp. 1548–1560

    2026

  50. [50]

    In2024 IEEE 32nd International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE)(June 2024), pp

    Wei, B.Requirements are All You Need: From Requirements to Code with LLMs. In2024 IEEE 32nd International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE)(June 2024), pp. 416–422. ISSN: 2332-6441

    2024