Papers for

quality assurance engineers

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

Confidence-guided method improves testing for AI code ranking

Confidence-Gated Transductive Test Generation for Code Reranking

Abstract: Test case synthesis is crucial for evaluating and ranking programs generated by large language models (LLMs). However, constructing high-quality test cases remains challenging because reliable expected outputs are often difficult to obtain. We propose Confidence-Gated Transductive Test Generation (CoTT), which first uses an efficient inductive procedure and invokes transductive generation only when inductive confidence is low. This adaptive design improves output reliability while allocating extra computation only when needed. On code reranking benchmarks, CoTT outperforms prior baselines across the reported metrics while reducing cost relative to applying transductive generation to every input. These results show that confidence-based allocation of test-time computation provides a favorable efficiency-effectiveness trade-off with a single efficient LLM.

Fri 11 SeptArtificial IntelligenceComputation and LanguageSoftware Engineering
The gist
It is hard to create good test examples to check if computer programs generated by AI are correct, especially when expected answers are unknown. The authors developed a new method called CoTT that first tries a quick approach and only does extra checking when it isn't confident enough. This saves time while still making sure the test results are trustworthy. Their tests show CoTT works better and faster than older methods at ranking AI-generated programs.
Open 2609.12489v1

Agentic AI helps maintain code for reproducible research

Reproducibility in the Age of Agentic AI: Context Engineering at the Timescale of a Codebase

Abstract: Reproducible research practices are context engineering for AI coding agents. I argue that agents lower the cost of maintaining tests, commit histories, repository structure, instructions, and decision records while making their benefits immediate. Researchers remain responsible for verifying these artifacts and the scientific judgments they encode.

Thu 10 SeptSoftware EngineeringComputers and Society
The gist
Keeping research reproducible is about carefully organizing code, tests, and records so that others can confirm results. The authors argue that AI coding agents lower the effort needed to maintain these parts of a project while making their advantages clear right away. Even so, humans still need to check these outputs and the decisions behind them to ensure correctness. This suggests a collaborative future where AI supports but does not replace human judgment in research.
Open 2609.11728v1

Traditional test criteria struggle to find bugs in AI generated code

How effective are traditional test criteria at detecting bugs in large language models generated code?

Abstract: Test adequacy criteria are widely used to evaluate and guide software testing. Although prior research has extensively examined these criteria using human-written programs, faults, and tests, the increasing adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) for code generation raises important questions about their effectiveness in detecting LLM-induced faults. To investigate this, we conduct an empirical study involving 5 LLMs and 4 benchmarks, simulating end-to-end workflows in which both code and tests are automatically generated. We collect 6,000+ faulty program instances and evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of 3 widely used adequacy criteria: statement coverage, branch coverage, and mutation testing. Our findings reveal several key insights. First, most faults introduced by LLMs are relatively trivial to catch. Second, the challenging faults are difficult to trigger using either traditional coverage-based or mutation-based criteria. Third, actual fault detection rates remain extremely low, often near zero, because test oracles fail to capture faulty behavior triggered by the generated test prefixes, exposing a critical limitation of automated test generation. Fourth, prompt-aware oracles can improve fault detection, but their overall effectiveness remains limited, highlighting the need for users to manually reason about test assertions. We further observe that mutation testing only marginally outperforms traditional coverage criteria in both triggering and detecting faults, raising questions about whether its significantly higher application cost is justified in this context.

Tue 8 SeptSoftware Engineering
The gist
The paper looks at how well common software testing rules catch bugs in code written by AI models. They found that many bugs are actually easy to detect, but harder problems slip through unnoticed because tests can't always spot them. Even stronger testing methods only do slightly better and may not be worth their extra effort. The authors say people still need to carefully check test results manually to find tricky mistakes.
Open 2609.09315v1