Daily Papers

There is an increasing amount of research and commercial tools for automated test case generation using Large Language Models (LLMs). This paper critically examines whether recent LLM-based test generation tools, such as Codium CoverAgent and CoverUp, can effectively find bugs or unintentionally validate faulty code. Considering bugs are only exposed by failing test cases, we explore the question: can these tools truly achieve the intended objectives of software testing when their test oracles are designed to pass? Using real human-written buggy code as input, we evaluate these tools, showing how LLM-generated tests can fail to detect bugs and, more alarmingly, how their design can worsen the situation by validating bugs in the generated test suite and rejecting bug-revealing tests. These findings raise important questions about the validity of the design behind LLM-based test generation tools and their impact on software quality and test suite reliability.

Generative AI and large language models hold great promise in enhancing programming education by automatically generating individualized feedback for students. We investigate the role of generative AI models in providing human tutor-style programming hints to help students resolve errors in their buggy programs. Recent works have benchmarked state-of-the-art models for various feedback generation scenarios; however, their overall quality is still inferior to human tutors and not yet ready for real-world deployment. In this paper, we seek to push the limits of generative AI models toward providing high-quality programming hints and develop a novel technique, GPT4Hints-GPT3.5Val. As a first step, our technique leverages GPT-4 as a ``tutor'' model to generate hints -- it boosts the generative quality by using symbolic information of failing test cases and fixes in prompts. As a next step, our technique leverages GPT-3.5, a weaker model, as a ``student'' model to further validate the hint quality -- it performs an automatic quality validation by simulating the potential utility of providing this feedback. We show the efficacy of our technique via extensive evaluation using three real-world datasets of Python programs covering a variety of concepts ranging from basic algorithms to regular expressions and data analysis using pandas library.

Program repair techniques offer cost-saving benefits for debugging within software development and programming education scenarios. With the proven effectiveness of Large Language Models (LLMs) in code-related tasks, researchers have explored their potential for program repair. However, it is crucial to recognize that existing repair benchmarks may have influenced LLM training data, potentially causing data leakage. To evaluate LLMs' realistic repair capabilities, (1) we introduce an extensive, non-crawled benchmark, referred to as TutorCode, comprising 1,239 C++ defect codes and associated information such as tutor guidance, solution description, failing test cases, and the corrected code. Our work assesses the repair performance of 12 LLMs on TutorCode, measuring repair correctness (TOP-5 and AVG-5) and patch precision (RPSR). (2) We then provide a comprehensive investigation into which types of extra information can help LLMs improve their performance in repairing defects. Among these types, tutor guidance was found to be the most effective information in enhancing LLM repair capabilities. To fully harness LLMs' conversational capabilities and the benefits of augmented information, (3) we introduce a novel conversational semi-automatic repair framework CREF assisting human tutor. It demonstrates a remarkable AVG-5 improvement of 17.2%-24.6% compared to the baseline, achieving an impressive AVG-5 of 76.6% when utilizing GPT-4. These results highlight the potential for enhancing LLMs' repair capabilities through interactions with tutors and historical conversations involving incorrect responses. The successful application of CREF in a real-world educational setting demonstrates its effectiveness in reducing tutors' workload and improving students' learning experience, while also showcasing its promise for facilitating other software engineering tasks, such as code review.

The tendency to find and exploit "shortcuts" to complete tasks poses significant risks for reliable assessment and deployment of large language models (LLMs). For example, an LLM agent with access to unit tests may delete failing tests rather than fix the underlying bug. Such behavior undermines both the validity of benchmark results and the reliability of real-world LLM coding assistant deployments. To quantify, study, and mitigate such behavior, we introduce ImpossibleBench, a benchmark framework that systematically measures LLM agents' propensity to exploit test cases. ImpossibleBench creates "impossible" variants of tasks from existing benchmarks like LiveCodeBench and SWE-bench by introducing direct conflicts between the natural-language specification and the unit tests. We measure an agent's "cheating rate" as its pass rate on these impossible tasks, where any pass necessarily implies a specification-violating shortcut. As a practical framework, ImpossibleBench is not just an evaluation but a versatile tool. We demonstrate its utility for: (1) studying model behaviors, revealing more fine-grained details of cheating behaviors from simple test modification to complex operator overloading; (2) context engineering, showing how prompt, test access and feedback loop affect cheating rates; and (3) developing monitoring tools, providing a testbed with verified deceptive solutions. We hope ImpossibleBench serves as a useful framework for building more robust and reliable LLM systems. Our implementation can be found at https://github.com/safety-research/impossiblebench.

Recent studies extend the autoregression paradigm to text-to-image generation, achieving performance comparable to diffusion models. However, our new PairComp benchmark -- featuring test cases of paired prompts with similar syntax but different fine-grained semantics -- reveals that existing models struggle with fine-grained text-image alignment thus failing to realize precise control over visual tokens. To address this, we propose FocusDiff, which enhances fine-grained text-image semantic alignment by focusing on subtle differences between similar text-image pairs. We construct a new dataset of paired texts and images with similar overall expressions but distinct local semantics, further introducing a novel reinforcement learning algorithm to emphasize such fine-grained semantic differences for desired image generation. Our approach achieves state-of-the-art performance on existing text-to-image benchmarks and significantly outperforms prior methods on PairComp.

Automated issue solving aims to resolve real-world issues in software repositories. The most popular benchmarks for automated issue solving are SWE-bench and its human-filtered subset SWE-bench Verified. These benchmarks leverage testing to validate generated patches. However, because testing is rarely exhaustive, a patch may pass the tests but nevertheless fail to match the developers' expectations. Unfortunately, it is currently unclear to what extent evaluations performed with SWE-bench suffer from such plausible but incorrect patches. This paper presents an in-depth empirical study of the correctness of plausible patches generated by three state-of-the-art issue-solving tools evaluated on SWE-bench Verified. We extensively test and inspect generated patches, and compare them against human-written ground truth patches. The core of our methodology is a novel technique PatchDiff for differential patch testing, which automatically exposes behavioral discrepancies between two patches. Our findings reveal critical weaknesses in SWE-bench's patch validation mechanism, which causes 7.8% of all patches to count as correct while failing the developer-written test suite. Moreover, our novel automated technique reveals that even more (29.6%) plausible patches induce different behavior than the ground truth patches. These behavioral differences are often due to similar, but divergent implementations (46.8%) and due to generated patches that adapt more behavior than the ground truth patches (27.3%). Our manual inspection shows that 28.6% of behaviorally divergent patches are certainly incorrect. Combined, the different weaknesses lead to an inflation of reported resolution rates by 6.2 absolute percent points. Our findings are a call to arms for more robust and reliable evaluation of issue-solving tools. We envision our automated differential patch testing technique to be useful for this purpose.