Juyeon Yoon

Juyeon Yoon, Robert Feldt, Shin Yoo

GUI testing checks if a software system behaves as expected when users interact with its graphical interface, e.g., testing specific functionality or validating relevant use case scenarios. Currently, deciding what to test at this high level is a manual task since automated GUI testing tools target lower level adequacy metrics such as structural code coverage or activity coverage. We propose DroidAgent, an autonomous GUI testing agent for Android, for semantic, intent-driven automation of GUI testing. It is based on Large Language Models and support mechanisms such as long- and short-term memory. Given an Android app, DroidAgent sets relevant task goals and subsequently tries to achieve them by interacting with the app. Our empirical evaluation of DroidAgent using 15 apps from the Themis benchmark shows that it can set up and perform realistic tasks, with a higher level of autonomy. For example, when testing a messaging app, DroidAgent created a second account and added a first account as a friend, testing a realistic use case, without human intervention. On average, DroidAgent achieved 61% activity coverage, compared to 51% for current state-of-the-art GUI testing techniques. Further, manual analysis shows that 317 out of the 374 autonomously created tasks are realistic and relevant to app functionalities, and also that DroidAgent interacts deeply with the apps and covers more features.

Felix Dobslaw, Robert Feldt, Juyeon Yoon et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) and Multi-Agent LLMs (MALLMs) introduce non-determinism unlike traditional or machine learning software, requiring new approaches to verifying correctness beyond simple output comparisons or statistical accuracy over test datasets. This paper presents a taxonomy for LLM test case design, informed by research literature and our experience. Each facet is exemplified, and we conduct an LLM-assisted analysis of six open-source testing frameworks, perform a sensitivity study of an agent-based system across different model configurations, and provide working examples contrasting atomic and aggregated test cases. We identify key variation points that impact test correctness and highlight open challenges that the research, industry, and open-source communities must address as LLMs become integral to software systems. Our taxonomy defines four facets of LLM test case design, addressing ambiguity in both inputs and outputs while establishing best practices. It distinguishes variability in goals, the system under test, and inputs, and introduces two key oracle types: atomic and aggregated. Our findings reveal that current tools treat test executions as isolated events, lack explicit aggregation mechanisms, and inadequately capture variability across model versions, configurations, and repeated runs. This highlights the need for viewing correctness as a distribution of outcomes rather than a binary property, requiring closer collaboration between academia and practitioners to establish mature, variability-aware testing methodologies.

Juyeon Yoon, Robert Feldt, Shin Yoo

The recent surge of building software systems powered by Large Language Models (LLMs) has led to the development of various testing frameworks, primarily focused on treating prompt templates as the unit of testing. Despite the significant costs associated with test input execution and output assessment, the curation of optimized test suites is yet overlooked in these tools, which calls for tailored test selection or prioritization strategies. In this paper, we show that diversity-based testing techniques, such as Adaptive Random Testing (ART) with appropriate string distance metrics, can be effectively applied to the testing of prompt templates. Our proposed adaptive testing approach adjusts the conventional ART process to this context by selecting new test inputs based on scores derived from existing test suite and their labelling results. Our results, obtained using various implementations that explore several string-based distances, confirm that our approach enables the discovery of failures with reduced testing budgets and promotes the generation of more varied outputs.

Juyeon Yoon, Somin Kim, Robert Feldt et al.

Software increasingly relies on the emergent capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs), from natural language understanding to program analysis and generation. Yet testing them on specific tasks remains difficult and costly: many prompts lack ground truth, forcing reliance on human judgment, while existing uncertainty and adequacy measures typically require full inference. A key challenge is to assess input adequacy in a way that reflects the demands of the task, ideally before even generating any output. We introduce CLOTHO, a task-specific, pre-generation adequacy measure that estimates input difficulty directly from hidden LLM states. Given a large pool of unlabelled inputs for a specific task, CLOTHO uses a Gaussian Mixture Model (GMM) to adaptively sample the most informative cases for human labelling. Based on this reference set the GMM can then rank unseen inputs by their likelihood of failure. In our empirical evaluation across eight benchmark tasks and three open-weight LLMs, CLOTHO can predict failures with a ROC-AUC of 0.716, after labelling reference sets that are on average only 5.4% of inputs. It does so without generating any outputs, thereby reducing costs compared to existing uncertainty measures. Comparison of CLOTHO and post-generation uncertainty measures shows that the two approaches complement each other. Crucially, we show that adequacy scores learnt from open-weight LLMs transfer effectively to proprietary models, extending the applicability of the approach. When prioritising test inputs for proprietary models, CLOTHO increases the average number of failing inputs from 18.7 to 42.5 out of 100, compared to random prioritisation.

Gabin An, Juyeon Yoon, Shin Yoo

Defects4J has enabled numerous software testing and debugging research work since its introduction. A large part of its contribution, and the resulting popularity, lies in the clear separation and distillation of the root cause of each individual test failure based on careful manual analysis, which in turn allowed researchers to easily study individual faults in isolation. However, in a realistic debugging scenario, multiple faults can coexist and affect test results collectively. Study of automated debugging techniques for these situations, such as failure clustering or fault localisation for multiple faults, would significantly benefit from a reliable benchmark of multiple, coexisting faults. We search for versions of Defects4J subjects that contain multiple faults, by iteratively transplanting fault-revealing test cases across Defects4J versions. Out of 326 studied versions of Defects4J subjects, we report that over 95% (311 versions) actually contain from two to 24 faults. We hope that the extended, multi-fault Defects4J can provide a platform for future research of testing and debugging techniques for multi-fault programs.

Gabin An, Juyeon Yoon, Joyce Jiyoung Whang et al.

Automated debugging techniques, such as Fault Localisation (FL) or Automated Program Repair (APR), are typically designed under the Single Fault Assumption (SFA). However, in practice, an unknown number of faults can independently cause multiple test case failures, making it difficult to allocate resources for debugging and to use automated debugging techniques. Clustering algorithms have been applied to group the test failures according to their root causes, but their accuracy can often be lacking due to the inherent limits in the distance metrics for test cases. We introduce a new test distance metric based on hypergraphs and evaluate their accuracy using multi-fault benchmarks that we have built on top of Defects4J and SIR. Results show that our technique, Hybiscus, can automatically achieve perfect clustering (i.e., the same number of clusters as the ground truth number of root causes, with all failing tests with the same root cause grouped together) for 418 out of 605 test runs with multiple test failures. Better failure clustering also allows us to separate different root causes and apply FL techniques under SFA, resulting in saving up to 82% of the total wasted effort when compared to the state-of-the-art technique for multiple fault localisation.