Improving Deep Assertion Generation via Fine-Tuning Retrieval-Augmented Pre-trained Language Models
February 22, 2025 Β· Declared Dead Β· π ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Quanjun Zhang, Chunrong Fang, Yi Zheng, Yaxin Zhang, Yuan Zhao, Rubing Huang, Jianyi Zhou, Yun Yang, Tao Zheng, Zhenyu Chen
arXiv ID
2502.16071
Category
cs.SE: Software Engineering
Citations
4
Venue
ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology
Last Checked
4 months ago
Abstract
Unit testing validates the correctness of the units of the software system under test and serves as the cornerstone in improving software quality and reliability. To reduce manual efforts in writing unit tests, some techniques have been proposed to automatically generate test assertions, with recent integration-based approaches considered state-of-the-art. Despite being promising, such integration-based approaches face several limitations, including reliance on lexical matching for assertion retrieval and a limited training corpus for assertion generation. This paper proposes a novel retrieval-augmented deep assertion generation approach, namely RetriGen, based on a hybrid retriever and a pre-trained language model (PLM)-based generator. Given a focal-test, RetriGen first builds a hybrid assertion retriever to search for the most relevant Test-Assert Pair from external codebases. The retrieval process considers lexical similarity and semantical similarity via a token-based and an embedding-based retriever, respectively. RetriGen then treats assertion generation as a sequence-to-sequence task and designs a PLM-based assertion generator to predict a correct assertion. We conduct extensive experiments to evaluate RetriGen against six state-of-the-art approaches across two large-scale datasets and two metrics. The results demonstrate that RetriGen achieves 57.66% accuracy and 73.24% CodeBLEU, outperforming all baselines with average improvements of 50.66% and 14.14%, respectively.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β Software Engineering
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Microservices: yesterday, today, and tomorrow
π
π
The Cartographer
A Survey of Machine Learning for Big Code and Naturalness
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
An Overview on Smart Contracts: Challenges, Advances and Platforms
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Slither: A Static Analysis Framework For Smart Contracts
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
ContractFuzzer: Fuzzing Smart Contracts for Vulnerability Detection
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted