Fitsum Kifetew

I. S. W. B. Prasetya, Fitsum Kifetew, Davide Prandi

Formal specifications, such as pre- and post-conditions provide a solid basis for performing thorough program verification. However, developers rarely provide such formal specifications, hence if AI could help in constructing them, it would make formal verification possible or at least make automated testing much more effective. This paper presents a study on the ability of LLMs in generating formal FULL pre- and post-conditions of a program, given its natural language description. 24 state-of-the-art LLMs were evaluated on a freshly prepared dataset of 40 tasks. The paper investigates specifications of varying difficulty and discusses a set of more refined performance metrics in addition the general accept@1 performance. It also investigates the impact of using automatically generated tests for validation of the solutions proposed by LLMs. The results of the experiment reveal that, in general LLMs can produce valid pre- and post-conditions based on natural language descriptions of programs. Incorrect solutions from proprietary models are also often near correct. A closer inspection shows that open-source models tend to result in a higher proportion of erroneous results while proprietary models tend to have slightly higher false negative rates. Interestingly, the results also show that augmenting the manually prepared dataset with automatically generated tests leads to the exposure of wrong solutions, which would have otherwise been accepted as correct. In general, LLMs perform better in formalizing pre-conditions than on post-conditions and proprietary models perform better than open ones. However, none of the LLMs were able to correctly formalize all the tasks in our benchmark. Overall, the effectiveness and reliability of LLMs in formalizing pre- and post-conditions could be greatly improved by using a good test suite that checks the correctness of the LLM generated formalizations.

Xavier Devroey, Alessio Gambi, Juan Pablo Galeotti et al.

Researchers and practitioners have designed and implemented various automated test case generators to support effective software testing. Such generators exist for various languages (e.g., Java, C#, or Python) and for various platforms (e.g., desktop, web, or mobile applications). Such generators exhibit varying effectiveness and efficiency, depending on the testing goals they aim to satisfy (e.g., unit-testing of libraries vs. system-testing of entire applications) and the underlying techniques they implement. In this context, practitioners need to be able to compare different generators to identify the most suited one for their requirements, while researchers seek to identify future research directions. This can be achieved through the systematic execution of large-scale evaluations of different generators. However, the execution of such empirical evaluations is not trivial and requires a substantial effort to collect benchmarks, setup the evaluation infrastructure, and collect and analyse the results. In this paper, we present our JUnit Generation benchmarking infrastructure (JUGE) supporting generators (e.g., search-based, random-based, symbolic execution, etc.) seeking to automate the production of unit tests for various purposes (e.g., validation, regression testing, fault localization, etc.). The primary goal is to reduce the overall effort, ease the comparison of several generators, and enhance the knowledge transfer between academia and industry by standardizing the evaluation and comparison process. Since 2013, eight editions of a unit testing tool competition, co-located with the Search-Based Software Testing Workshop, have taken place and used and updated JUGE. As a result, an increasing amount of tools (over ten) from both academia and industry have been evaluated on JUGE, matured over the years, and allowed the identification of future research directions.