Unify and Triumph: Polyglot, Diverse, and Self-Consistent Generation of Unit Tests with LLMs

March 20, 2025 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 Djamel Eddine Khelladi, Charly Reux, Mathieu Acher arXiv ID 2503.16144 Category cs.SE: Software Engineering Cross-listed cs.AI Citations 1 Venue arXiv.org Last Checked 5 months ago
Abstract
Large language model (LLM)-based test generation has gained attention in software engineering, yet most studies evaluate LLMs' ability to generate unit tests in a single attempt for a given language, missing the opportunity to leverage LLM diversity for more robust testing. This paper introduces PolyTest, a novel approach that enhances test generation by exploiting polyglot and temperature-controlled diversity. PolyTest systematically leverages these properties in two complementary ways: (1) Cross-lingual test generation, where tests are generated in multiple languages at zero temperature and then unified; (2) Diverse test sampling, where multiple test sets are generated within the same language at a higher temperature before unification. A key insight is that LLMs can generate diverse yet contradicting tests -- same input, different expected outputs -- across languages and generations. PolyTest mitigates inconsistencies by unifying test sets, fostering self-consistency and improving overall test quality. Unlike single-language or single-attempt approaches, PolyTest enhances testing without requiring on-the-fly execution, making it particularly beneficial for weaker-performing languages. We evaluate PolyTest on Llama3-70B, GPT-4o, and GPT-3.5 using EvalPlus, generating tests in five languages (Java, C, Python, JavaScript, and a CSV-based format) at temperature 0 and sampling multiple sets at temperature 1. We observe that LLMs frequently generate contradicting tests across settings, and that PolyTest significantly improves test quality across all considered metrics -- number of tests, passing rate, statement/branch coverage (up to +9.01%), and mutation score (up to +11.23%). Finally, PolyTest outperforms Pynguin in test generation, passing rate, and mutation score.
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