As Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate increasingly sophisticated code processing capabilities, evaluating their performance on engineering-level code remains challenging. Existing repository-level benchmarks primarily focus on single scenarios, such as code generation or bug fixing, without adequately capturing the diversity and complexity of real-world software or project engineering workflows. Furthermore, these benchmarks suffer from limited controllability in question positioning and reliability issues in their generated test cases. To address these limitations, we present CorePipe, a fully automated pipeline that converts repositories into comprehensive test cases, and introduce CoreCodeBench, a configurable multi-scenario repository-level benchmark. To simulate real engineering scenarios, CorePipe generates three types of atomic questions (Development, BugFix, and Test-Driven Development) specifically targeting core code segments. These atomic questions are further combined into three types of composite questions, with difficulty levels flexibly adjusted through hyperparameter tuning. CoreCodeBench provides a comprehensive and extensive repository-level benchmark to investigate the applicability of LLMs in real-world engineering projects. Experiments with 16 LLMs across diverse scenarios reveal varying capabilities and offer multi-dimensional insights into LLM performance in engineering contexts. The code for CorePipe is available at https://github.com/AGI-Eval-Official/CoreCodeBench, and the data for CoreCodeBench can be accessed at https://huggingface.co/collections/tubehhh/corecodebench-68256d2faabf4b1610a08caa.
We introduce **SWE-Flow**, a novel data synthesis framework grounded in Test-Driven Development (TDD). Unlike existing software engineering data that rely on human-submitted issues, **SWE-Flow** automatically infers incremental development steps directly from unit tests, which inherently encapsulate high-level requirements. The core of **SWE-Flow** is the construction of a Runtime Dependency Graph (RDG), which precisely captures function interactions, enabling the generation of a structured, step-by-step *development schedule*. At each step, **SWE-Flow** produces a partial codebase, the corresponding unit tests, and the necessary code modifications, resulting in fully verifiable TDD tasks. With this approach, we generated 16,061 training instances and 2,020 test instances from real-world GitHub projects, creating the **SWE-Flow-Eval** benchmark. Our experiments show that fine-tuning open model on this dataset significantly improves performance in TDD-based coding. To facilitate further research, we release all code, datasets, models, and Docker images at [Github](https://github.com/Hambaobao/SWE-Flow).
While there has been plenty of work on generating tests from existing code, there has been limited work on generating tests from issues. A correct test must validate the code patch that resolves the issue. This paper focuses on the scenario where that code patch does not yet exist. Doing so supports two major use-cases. First, it supports TDD (test-driven development), the discipline of "test first, write code later" that has well-documented benefits for human software engineers. Second, it also validates SWE (software engineering) agents, which generate code patches for resolving issues. This paper introduces TDD-Bench-Verified, a benchmark for generating tests from issues, and Otter, an LLM-based solution for this task. Otter augments LLMs with rule-based analysis to check and repair their outputs, and introduces a novel self-reflective action planner. Experiments show Otter outperforming state-of-the-art systems for generating tests from issues, in addition to enhancing systems that generate patches from issues. We hope that Otter helps make developers more productive at resolving issues and leads to more robust, well-tested code.
Test-driven development (TDD) is the practice of writing tests first and coding later, and the proponents of TDD expound its numerous benefits. For instance, given an issue on a source code repository, tests can clarify the desired behavior among stake-holders before anyone writes code for the agreed-upon fix. Although there has been a lot of work on automated test generation for the practice "write code first, test later", there has been little such automation for TDD. Ideally, tests for TDD should be fail-to-pass (i.e., fail before the issue is resolved and pass after) and have good adequacy with respect to covering the code changed during issue resolution. This paper introduces TDD-Bench Verified, a high-quality benchmark suite of 449 issues mined from real-world GitHub code repositories. The benchmark's evaluation harness runs only relevant tests in isolation for simple yet accurate coverage measurements, and the benchmark's dataset is filtered both by human judges and by execution in the harness. This paper also presents Auto-TDD, an LLM-based solution that takes as input an issue description and a codebase (prior to issue resolution) and returns as output a test that can be used to validate the changes made for resolving the issue. Our evaluation shows that Auto-TDD yields a better fail-to-pass rate than the strongest prior work while also yielding high coverage adequacy. Overall, we hope that this work helps make developers more productive at resolving issues while simultaneously leading to more robust fixes.
Behavior-driven development (BDD) is an Agile testing methodology fostering collaboration among developers, QA analysts, and stakeholders. In this manuscript, we propose a novel approach to enhance BDD practices using large language models (LLMs) to automate acceptance test generation. Our study uses zero and few-shot prompts to evaluate LLMs such as GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Llama-2-13B, and PaLM-2. The paper presents a detailed methodology that includes the dataset, prompt techniques, LLMs, and the evaluation process. The results demonstrate that GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 generate error-free BDD acceptance tests with better performance. The few-shot prompt technique highlights its ability to provide higher accuracy by incorporating examples for in-context learning. Furthermore, the study examines syntax errors, validation accuracy, and comparative analysis of LLMs, revealing their effectiveness in enhancing BDD practices. However, our study acknowledges that there are limitations to the proposed approach. We emphasize that this approach can support collaborative BDD processes and create opportunities for future research into automated BDD acceptance test generation using LLMs.
The size of deep learning models in artificial intelligence (AI) software is increasing rapidly, hindering the large-scale deployment on resource-restricted devices (e.g., smartphones). To mitigate this issue, AI software compression plays a crucial role, which aims to compress model size while keeping high performance. However, the intrinsic defects in a big model may be inherited by the compressed one. Such defects may be easily leveraged by adversaries, since a compressed model is usually deployed in a large number of devices without adequate protection. In this article, we aim to address the safe model compression problem from the perspective of safety-performance co-optimization. Specifically, inspired by the test-driven development (TDD) paradigm in software engineering, we propose a test-driven sparse training framework called SafeCompress. By simulating the attack mechanism as safety testing, SafeCompress can automatically compress a big model to a small one following the dynamic sparse training paradigm. Then, considering two kinds of representative and heterogeneous attack mechanisms, i.e., black-box membership inference attack and white-box membership inference attack, we develop two concrete instances called BMIA-SafeCompress and WMIA-SafeCompress. Further, we implement another instance called MMIA-SafeCompress by extending SafeCompress to defend against the occasion when adversaries conduct black-box and white-box membership inference attacks simultaneously. We conduct extensive experiments on five datasets for both computer vision and natural language processing tasks. The results show the effectiveness and generalizability of our framework. We also discuss how to adapt SafeCompress to other attacks besides membership inference attack, demonstrating the flexibility of SafeCompress.
The size of deep learning models in artificial intelligence (AI) software is increasing rapidly, which hinders the large-scale deployment on resource-restricted devices (e.g., smartphones). To mitigate this issue, AI software compression plays a crucial role, which aims to compress model size while keeping high performance. However, the intrinsic defects in the big model may be inherited by the compressed one. Such defects may be easily leveraged by attackers, since the compressed models are usually deployed in a large number of devices without adequate protection. In this paper, we try to address the safe model compression problem from a safety-performance co-optimization perspective. Specifically, inspired by the test-driven development (TDD) paradigm in software engineering, we propose a test-driven sparse training framework called SafeCompress. By simulating the attack mechanism as the safety test, SafeCompress can automatically compress a big model to a small one following the dynamic sparse training paradigm. Further, considering a representative attack, i.e., membership inference attack (MIA), we develop a concrete safe model compression mechanism, called MIA-SafeCompress. Extensive experiments are conducted to evaluate MIA-SafeCompress on five datasets for both computer vision and natural language processing tasks. The results verify the effectiveness and generalization of our method. We also discuss how to adapt SafeCompress to other attacks besides MIA, demonstrating the flexibility of SafeCompress.
Automated unit test case generation tools facilitate test-driven development and support developers by suggesting tests intended to identify flaws in their code. Existing approaches are usually guided by the test coverage criteria, generating synthetic test cases that are often difficult for developers to read or understand. In this paper we propose AthenaTest, an approach that aims to generate unit test cases by learning from real-world focal methods and developer-written testcases. We formulate unit test case generation as a sequence-to-sequence learning task, adopting a two-step training procedure consisting of denoising pretraining on a large unsupervised Java corpus, and supervised finetuning for a downstream translation task of generating unit tests. We investigate the impact of natural language and source code pretraining, as well as the focal context information surrounding the focal method. Both techniques provide improvements in terms of validation loss, with pretraining yielding 25% relative improvement and focal context providing additional 11.1% improvement. We also introduce Methods2Test, the largest publicly available supervised parallel corpus of unit test case methods and corresponding focal methods in Java, which comprises 780K test cases mined from 91K open-source repositories from GitHub. We evaluate AthenaTest on five defects4j projects, generating 25K passing test cases covering 43.7% of the focal methods with only 30 attempts. We execute the test cases, collect test coverage information, and compare them with test cases generated by EvoSuite and GPT-3, finding that our approach outperforms GPT-3 and has comparable coverage w.r.t. EvoSuite. Finally, we survey professional developers on their preference in terms of readability, understandability, and testing effectiveness of the generated tests, showing overwhelmingly preference towards AthenaTest.