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

December 01, 2024 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› arXiv.org

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Xin Yin, Chao Ni, Xiaodan Xu, Xiaohu Yang arXiv ID 2412.00828 Category cs.SE: Software Engineering Citations 6 Venue arXiv.org Last Checked 4 months ago
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.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Software Engineering

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted