Benchmarking LLMs for Unit Test Generation from Real-World Functions
August 01, 2025 Β· Declared Dead Β· π arXiv.org
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Dong Huang, Jie M. Zhang, Mark Harman, Qianru Zhang, Mingzhe Du, See-Kiong Ng
arXiv ID
2508.00408
Category
cs.SE: Software Engineering
Cross-listed
cs.CL
Citations
6
Venue
arXiv.org
Last Checked
4 months ago
Abstract
Recently, large language models (LLMs) have shown great promise in automating unit test generation, significantly reducing the manual effort required by developers. To effectively evaluate the capabilities of LLMs in this domain, it is crucial to have a well-designed benchmark that accurately reflects real-world scenarios and mitigates common pitfalls. Existing LLM test generation benchmarks are limited by two critical drawbacks: data contamination and structurally simple function code. As a result, we often cannot rely on the validity of scientific conclusions drawn from empirical studies using these limited benchmarks. The empirical evidence presented may be biased due to contamination and may fail to generalize beyond toy programs due to structural simplicity. To address these problems, we introduce ULT (UnLeakedTestbench), a new benchmark specifically designed for function-level unit test generation from real-world Python functions. ULT is constructed through a multi-stage curation process that ensures high cyclomatic complexity and mitigates test case contamination. With 3,909 carefully selected function-level tasks, ULT provides a more realistic and challenging evaluation of LLMs' test generation capabilities. We also provide PLT (PreLeakedTestbench), a pair benchmark of ULT with leaked tests designed to enable a controlled analysis of memorization versus reasoning in test generation. Our evaluation results demonstrate that ULT is significantly more challenging. For example, test cases generated by LLMs only achieve 41.32\%, 45.10\%, 30.22\%, and 40.21\% for accuracy, statement coverage, branch coverage, and mutation score on average for all LLMs, respectively. These results are substantially lower than the corresponding metrics on TestEval (91.79\%, 92.18\%, 82.04\%, and 49.69\%) and PLT (47.07\%, 55.13\%, 40.07\%, and 50.80\%).
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