arXiv:2607. 06636v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models frequently generate code that appears correct on typical inputs yet fails on edge cases, invalid inputs, and other specification-defined corner conditions.
Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
arXiv:2607. 22883v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: While Large Language Models (LLMs) show great promise for automating unit test generation, recent studies suggest that the quality of generated tests can be negatively impacted when models are prompted with buggy code.
arXiv:2607. 19843v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have made automated program repair (APR) increasingly practical for real-world bugs, but repairing directly from bug reports remains underconstrained.
arXiv:2609.35841v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Mutation testing evaluates test-suite adequacy by injecting synthetic faults into program code. However, traditional rule-based tools often generate...
arXiv:2605. 15229v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Existing code benchmarks measure whether an agent can produce any test that reproduces a known bug, or whether it can produce a patch that fixes a described issue.
arXiv:2606. 20512v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM-based coding agents need higher-level operational knowledge about a repository (which files house which subsystems, how to run the test suite, which workflows have historically led to wrong fixes) that does not exist in the code itself.
While Large Language Models (LLMs) show great promise for automating unit test generation, recent studies suggest that the quality of generated tests can be negatively impacted when models are prompted with buggy code. This paper presents a new metric to quantitatively measure the "misguidance effect," a phenomenon where buggy code steers LLMs toward generating tests that validate its erroneous behavior rather than expose it.