QTestBench is a new framework that evaluates quantum code tests generated by large language models (LLMs) by comparing their verdicts against independent benchmark checkers, rather than treating the tests as ground truth. It prompts models to produce syntactic, semantic, and behavioral tests, injects candidate solutions at runtime, and assesses test quality across three validation cohorts. In benchmarks on PennyLane QHack challenges and Qiskit HumanEval tasks, generated test suites frequently execute but often fail to discriminate correct from faulty implementations, with the best test quality scores of 0.71 and 0.34 respectively.
By Meriem Terki, Nouhaila Innan, Minghao Shao, Muhammad Kashif, Alberto Marchisio, Muhammad Shafique
SWE-Critix is a post‑training pipeline that creates generalist verifiers for coding‑agent trajectories. It uses supervised fine‑tuning followed by reinforcement learning to train 30B models on CodeForge‑Preview data, enabling the verifier to predict completion labels and generate natural‑language explanations. The approach raises classification accuracy from 57% to 78% on a held‑out test set.
By Jiajun Hu, Chun Yong Chong
arXiv:2606. 15589v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: For tool-augmented language models, comparing natural-language reasoning with code-execution pipelines is difficult because the comparison changes both the intermediate representation and the execution mechanism.
By Terry Tong, Yu Feng, Surbhi Goel, Dan Roth
arXiv:2505. 03818v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) can achieve strong performance on everyday coding tasks, but they can fail on complex tasks that require non-trivial reasoning about program semantics.
By Antonio Valerio Miceli-Barone, Vaishak Belle, Ali Payani
As large language model agents increasingly compile natural-language requirements into repository-level code, requirement-to-test generation grows in importance to provide validation constraints (or h...
The paper introduces Req2Test-Bench, a benchmark of 5,086 instances linking natural‑language Gherkin requirements to developer‑written test implementations across five languages and four BDD frameworks. It evaluates eight agent–model–reasoning setups, finding that while the best configuration (Codex with DeepSeek‑V4.1‑Flash) produces passing tests for 82.8% of cases, only 33.8% are behaviorally adequate, as measured by kill‑completeness. The study highlights diminishing returns from scaling agents, the impact of under‑specified requirements, and the potential of requirement‑grounded harnesses to improve test generation.
By Binhang Qi, Yiming Liu, Yun Lin, Yangjie Zhou, Hailong Sun, Jin Song Dong
Schr"odinger's Repository (Schr"odingerRepo) is an evaluation framework that tests coding agents on dynamically instantiated repository representations to mitigate data leakage from static repository benchmarks. It transforms test repositories through four levels—problem statement reconstruction, namespace remapping, intra-file layout reordering, and functionality-preserving code rewriting—to obscure familiar cues while preserving executable behavior. Experiments on popular LLMs using SWE-bench Verified and SWE-QA show that removing these cues consistently degrades performance and increases interaction costs, mainly due to harder repository exploration and localization.
By Silin Chen, Yufei Yang, Xiaodong Gu, Yuling Shi, Chengcheng Wan, Haibing Guan
TestJack is a scalable framework that audits large language model (LLM) coding agents by generating new tests for each trial, focusing on prompt requirements that may be violated. It keeps only the tests passed by the ground‑truth patch and re‑examines failures, providing replayable evidence for each confirmed error. In experiments across six model backends and five benchmarks, TestJack found that 34.4% of trials deemed correct actually violated task requirements, reducing the overall resolution rate from 50.6% to 33.2%.
By Shuangjie Yao, Hao Wang, Koushik Sen, Simin Chen, Baishakhi Ray, Dawn Song
The paper introduces RobustTests, a framework that improves reinforcement learning for code generation by synthesizing test cases from faulty code and refining rewards with a dense, stepwise function. It uses validator agents and behavioral clustering to filter out invalid or redundant tests, and incorporates pass‑rate‑based rewards to counter hallucination noise. Experiments on CodeContests and LiveCodeBench show that fine‑tuning Qwen3‑32B with RobustTests yields a 3% absolute performance gain over baseline methods.
By Yiwen Zhang, Xiaodong Yan, Zhenyu Huang, Deng Zhao, Liang Jiang, Qing Cui, Zujie Wen, Zhiqiang Zhang, Jun Zhou
arXiv:2605. 25572v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The growing complexity of quantum programming frameworks has exposed a critical limitation in existing large language model (LLM)-based code assistants: general-purpose models hallucinate PennyLane-specific gate names, misplace device configurations, and produce structurally invalid circuits when faced with specialized quantum coding challenges.
By Minghao Shao, Nouhaila Innan, Hariharan Janardhanan, Muhammad Kashif, Alberto Marchisio, Muhammad Shafique
arXiv:2601. 03808v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have achieved notable performance in code synthesis; however, data-aware augmentation remains a limiting factor, handled via heuristic design or brute-force approaches.
By Usha Shrestha, Dmitry Ignatov, Radu Timofte
The paper investigates how large language models (LLMs) used for code generation can produce syntactically plausible but incorrect programs, a phenomenon termed overconfident failure. By evaluating four open-source code models across three execution-based benchmarks, the authors examine whether token-level uncertainty metrics can predict execution correctness, analyze overconfidence at both global and local levels, and test mitigation strategies such as selective generation and instruction tuning. Their findings show that existing uncertainty signals are only partially reliable, overconfidence persists across models, instruction tuning can increase certainty without improving correctness discrimination, and common mitigation techniques do not fully resolve the issue.
"whyItMatters":"The study highlights that current uncertainty metrics and mitigation strategies are insufficient to reliably detect or prevent incorrect code generation, underscoring the need for better reliability signals in LLM-based code synthesis."
By Ravishka Rathnasuriya, Wei Yang