Benchmarking LLMs for Unit Test Generation from Real-World Functions

August 01, 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 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 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