Jiho Shin

Jiho Shin, Sepehr Hashtroudi, Hadi Hemmati et al.

Recently, deep learning-based test case generation approaches have been proposed to automate the generation of unit test cases. In this study, we leverage Transformer-based code models to generate unit tests with the help of Domain Adaptation (DA) at a project level. Specifically, we use CodeT5, a relatively small language model trained on source code data, and fine-tune it on the test generation task. Then, we apply domain adaptation to each target project data to learn project-specific knowledge (project-level DA). We use the Methods2test dataset to fine-tune CodeT5 for the test generation task and the Defects4j dataset for project-level domain adaptation and evaluation. We compare our approach with (a) CodeT5 fine-tuned on the test generation without DA, (b) the A3Test tool, and (c) GPT-4 on five projects from the Defects4j dataset. The results show that tests generated using DA can increase the line coverage by 18.62%, 19.88%, and 18.02% and mutation score by 16.45%, 16.01%, and 12.99% compared to the above (a), (b), and (c) baselines, respectively. The overall results show consistent improvements in metrics such as parse rate, compile rate, BLEU, and CodeBLEU. In addition, we show that our approach can be seen as a complementary solution alongside existing search-based test generation tools such as EvoSuite, to increase the overall coverage and mutation scores with an average of 34.42% and 6.8%, for line coverage and mutation score, respectively.

Jiho Shin, Nima Shiri Harzevili, Reem Aleithan et al.

Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) has advanced software engineering tasks but remains underexplored in unit test generation. To bridge this gap, we investigate the efficacy of RAG-based unit test generation for machine learning (ML/DL) APIs and analyze the impact of different knowledge sources on their effectiveness. We examine three domain-specific sources for RAG: (1) API documentation (official guidelines), (2) GitHub issues (developer-reported resolutions), and (3) StackOverflow Q&As (community-driven solutions). Our study focuses on five widely used Python-based ML/DL libraries, TensorFlow, PyTorch, Scikit-learn, Google JAX, and XGBoost, targeting the most-used APIs. We evaluate four state-of-the-art LLMs -- GPT-3.5-Turbo, GPT-4o, Mistral MoE 8x22B, and Llama 3.1 405B -- across three strategies: basic instruction prompting, Basic RAG, and API-level RAG. Quantitatively, we assess syntactical and dynamic correctness and line coverage. While RAG does not enhance correctness, RAG improves line coverage by 6.5% on average. We found that GitHub issues result in the best improvement in line coverage by providing edge cases from various issues. We also found that these generated unit tests can help detect new bugs. Specifically, 28 bugs were detected, 24 unique bugs were reported to developers, ten were confirmed, four were rejected, and ten are awaiting developers' confirmation. Our findings highlight RAG's potential in unit test generation for improving test coverage with well-targeted knowledge sources. Future work should focus on retrieval techniques that identify documents with unique program states to optimize RAG-based unit test generation further.

Jiho Shin, Hadi Hemmati, Moshi Wei et al.

In this work, we revisit existing oracle generation studies plus ChatGPT to empirically investigate the current standing of their performance in both NLG-based and test adequacy metrics. Specifically, we train and run four state-of-the-art test oracle generation models on five NLG-based and two test adequacy metrics for our analysis. We apply two different correlation analyses between these two different sets of metrics. Surprisingly, we found no significant correlation between the NLG-based metrics and test adequacy metrics. For instance, oracles generated from ChatGPT on the project activemq-artemis had the highest performance on all the NLG-based metrics among the studied NOGs, however, it had the most number of projects with a decrease in test adequacy metrics compared to all the studied NOGs. We further conduct a qualitative analysis to explore the reasons behind our observations, we found that oracles with high NLG-based metrics but low test adequacy metrics tend to have complex or multiple chained method invocations within the oracle's parameters, making it hard for the model to generate completely, affecting the test adequacy metrics. On the other hand, oracles with low NLG-based metrics but high test adequacy metrics tend to have to call different assertion types or a different method that functions similarly to the ones in the ground truth. Overall, this work complements prior studies on test oracle generation with an extensive performance evaluation with both NLG and test adequacy metrics and provides guidelines for better assessment of deep learning applications in software test generation in the future.

Jiho Shin, Reem Aleithan, Jaechang Nam et al.

Explaining the prediction results of software defect prediction models is a challenging while practical task, which can provide useful information for developers to understand and fix the predicted bugs. To address this issue, recently, Jiarpakdee et al. proposed to use {two state-of-the-art} model-agnostic techniques (i.e., LIME and BreakDown) to explain the prediction results of bug prediction models. Their experiments show these tools can generate promising results and the generated explanations can assist developers understand the prediction results. However, the fact that LIME and BreakDown were only examined on a single software defect prediction model setting calls into question about their consistency and reliability across software defect prediction models with various settings. In this paper, we set out to investigate the consistency and reliability of model-agnostic technique based explanation generation approaches (i.e., LIME and BreakDown) on software defect prediction models with different settings , e.g., different data sampling techniques, different machine learning classifiers, and different prediction scenarios. Specifically, we use both LIME and BreakDown to generate explanations for the same instance under software defect prediction models with different settings and then check the consistency of the generated explanations for the instance. We reused the same defect data from Jiarpakdee et al. in our experiments. The results show that both LIME and BreakDown generate inconsistent explanations under different software defect prediction settings for the same test instances, which makes them unreliable for explanation generation. Overall, with this study, we call for more research in explainable software defect prediction towards achieving consistent and reliable explanation generation.