LLM-Powered Test Case Generation for Detecting Tricky Bugs

Conventional automated test generation tools struggle to generate test oracles and tricky bug-revealing test inputs. Large Language Models (LLMs) can be prompted to produce test inputs and oracles for a program directly, but the precision of the tests can be very low for complex scenarios (only 6.3% based on our experiments). To fill this gap, this paper proposes AID, which combines LLMs with differential testing to generate fault-revealing test inputs and oracles targeting plausibly correct programs (i.e., programs that have passed all the existing tests). In particular, AID selects test inputs that yield diverse outputs on a set of program variants generated by LLMs, then constructs the test oracle based on the outputs. We evaluate AID on two large-scale datasets with tricky bugs: TrickyBugs and EvalPlus, and compare it with three state-of-the-art baselines. The evaluation results show that the recall, precision, and F1 score of AID outperform the state-of-the-art by up to 1.80x, 2.65x, and 1.66x, respectively.

EffiBench: Benchmarking the Efficiency of Automatically Generated Code

Code generation models have increasingly become integral to aiding software development, offering assistance in tasks such as code completion, debugging, and code translation. Although current research has thoroughly examined the correctness of code produced by code generation models, a vital aspect, i.e., the efficiency of the generated code, has often been neglected. This paper presents EffiBench, a benchmark with 1,000 efficiency-critical coding problems for assessing the efficiency of code generated by code generation models. EffiBench contains a diverse set of LeetCode coding problems. Each problem is paired with an executable human-written canonical solution. With EffiBench, we empirically examine the capability of 21 Large Language Models (13 open-sourced and 8 closed-sourced) in generating efficient code. The results demonstrate that GPT-4-turbo generates the most efficient code, significantly outperforming Palm-2-chat-bison, Claude-instant-1, Gemini-pro, GPT-4, and GPT-3.5. Nevertheless, its code efficiency is still worse than the efficiency of human-written canonical solutions. In particular, the average and worst execution time of GPT-4-turbo generated code is 1.69 and 45.49 times that of the canonical solutions.

AgentCoder: Multi-Agent-based Code Generation with Iterative Testing and Optimisation

The advancement of natural language processing (NLP) has been significantly boosted by the development of transformer-based large language models (LLMs). These models have revolutionized NLP tasks, particularly in code generation, aiding developers in creating software with enhanced efficiency. Despite their advancements, challenges in balancing code snippet generation with effective test case generation and execution persist. To address these issues, this paper introduces Multi-Agent Assistant Code Generation (AgentCoder), a novel solution comprising a multi-agent framework with specialized agents: the programmer agent, the test designer agent, and the test executor agent. During the coding procedure, the programmer agent will focus on the code generation and refinement based on the test executor agent's feedback. The test designer agent will generate test cases for the generated code, and the test executor agent will run the code with the test cases and write the feedback to the programmer. This collaborative system ensures robust code generation, surpassing the limitations of single-agent models and traditional methodologies. Our extensive experiments on 9 code generation models and 12 enhancement approaches showcase AgentCoder's superior performance over existing code generation models and prompt engineering techniques across various benchmarks. For example, AgentCoder achieves 77.4% and 89.1% pass@1 in HumanEval-ET and MBPP-ET with GPT-3.5, while SOTA baselines obtain only 69.5% and 63.0%.

ConDefects: A New Dataset to Address the Data Leakage Concern for LLM-based Fault Localization and Program Repair

With the growing interest on Large Language Models (LLMs) for fault localization and program repair, ensuring the integrity and generalizability of the LLM-based methods becomes paramount. The code in existing widely-adopted benchmarks for these tasks was written before the the bloom of LLMs and may be included in the training data of existing popular LLMs, thereby suffering from the threat of data leakage, leading to misleadingly optimistic performance metrics. To address this issue, we introduce "ConDefects", a novel dataset of real faults meticulously curated to eliminate such overlap. ConDefects contains 1,254 Java faulty programs and 1,625 Python faulty programs. All these programs are sourced from the online competition platform AtCoder and were produced between October 2021 and September 2023. We pair each fault with fault locations and the corresponding repaired code versions, making it tailored for in fault localization and program repair related research. We also provide interfaces for selecting subsets based on different time windows and coding task difficulties. While inspired by LLM-based tasks, ConDefects can be adopted for benchmarking ALL types of fault localization and program repair methods. The dataset is publicly available, and a demo video can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22j15Hj5ONk.

Dark-Skin Individuals Are at More Risk on the Street: Unmasking Fairness Issues of Autonomous Driving Systems

This paper conducts fairness testing on automated pedestrian detection, a crucial but under-explored issue in autonomous driving systems. We evaluate eight widely-studied pedestrian detectors across demographic groups on large-scale real-world datasets. To enable thorough fairness testing, we provide extensive annotations for the datasets, resulting in 8,311 images with 16,070 gender labels, 20,115 age labels, and 3,513 skin tone labels. Our findings reveal significant fairness issues related to age and skin tone. The detection accuracy for adults is 19.67% higher compared to children, and there is a 7.52% accuracy disparity between light-skin and dark-skin individuals. Gender, however, shows only a 1.1% difference in detection accuracy. Additionally, we investigate common scenarios explored in the literature on autonomous driving testing, and find that the bias towards dark-skin pedestrians increases significantly under scenarios of low contrast and low brightness. We publicly release the code, data, and results to support future research on fairness in autonomous driving.

An Empirical Study on Fairness Improvement with Multiple Protected Attributes

Existing research mostly improves the fairness of Machine Learning (ML) software regarding a single protected attribute at a time, but this is unrealistic given that many users have multiple protected attributes. This paper conducts an extensive study of fairness improvement regarding multiple protected attributes, covering 11 state-of-the-art fairness improvement methods. We analyze the effectiveness of these methods with different datasets, metrics, and ML models when considering multiple protected attributes. The results reveal that improving fairness for a single protected attribute can largely decrease fairness regarding unconsidered protected attributes. This decrease is observed in up to 88.3% of scenarios (57.5% on average). More surprisingly, we find little difference in accuracy loss when considering single and multiple protected attributes, indicating that accuracy can be maintained in the multiple-attribute paradigm. However, the effect on precision and recall when handling multiple protected attributes is about 5 times and 8 times that of a single attribute. This has important implications for future fairness research: reporting only accuracy as the ML performance metric, which is currently common in the literature, is inadequate.

Bias Mitigation for Machine Learning Classifiers: A Comprehensive Survey

This paper provides a comprehensive survey of bias mitigation methods for achieving fairness in Machine Learning (ML) models. We collect a total of 234 publications concerning bias mitigation for ML classifiers. These methods can be distinguished based on their intervention procedure (i.e., pre-processing, in-processing, post-processing) and the technology they apply. We investigate how existing bias mitigation methods are evaluated in the literature. In particular, we consider datasets, metrics and benchmarking. Based on the gathered insights (e.g., what is the most popular fairness metric? How many datasets are used for evaluating bias mitigation methods?). We hope to support practitioners in making informed choices when developing and evaluating new bias mitigation methods.

A Comprehensive Empirical Study of Bias Mitigation Methods for Software Fairness

Software bias is an increasingly important operational concern for software engineers. We present a large-scale, comprehensive empirical evaluation of 17 representative bias mitigation methods, evaluated with 12 Machine Learning (ML) performance metrics, 4 fairness metrics, and 24 types of fairness-performance trade-off assessment, applied to 8 widely-adopted benchmark software decision/prediction tasks. The empirical coverage is comprehensive, covering the largest numbers of bias mitigation methods, evaluation metrics, and fairness-performance trade-off measures compared to previous work on this important operational software characteristic. We find that (1) the bias mitigation methods significantly decrease the values reported by all ML performance metrics (including those not considered in previous work) in a large proportion of the scenarios studied (42%~75% according to different ML performance metrics); (2) the bias mitigation methods achieve fairness improvement in only approximately 50% over all scenarios and metrics (ranging between 29%~59% according to the metric used to asses bias/fairness); (3) the bias mitigation methods have a poor fairness-performance trade-off or even lead to decreases in both fairness and ML performance in 37% of the scenarios; (4) the effectiveness of the bias mitigation methods depends on tasks, models, and fairness and ML performance metrics, and there is no 'silver bullet' bias mitigation method demonstrated to be effective for all scenarios studied. The best bias mitigation method that we find outperforms other methods in only 29% of the scenarios. We have made publicly available the scripts and data used in this study in order to allow for future replication and extension of our work.

Leveraging Automated Unit Tests for Unsupervised Code Translation

With little to no parallel data available for programming languages, unsupervised methods are well-suited to source code translation. However, the majority of unsupervised machine translation approaches rely on back-translation, a method developed in the context of natural language translation and one that inherently involves training on noisy inputs. Unfortunately, source code is highly sensitive to small changes; a single token can result in compilation failures or erroneous programs, unlike natural languages where small inaccuracies may not change the meaning of a sentence. To address this issue, we propose to leverage an automated unit-testing system to filter out invalid translations, thereby creating a fully tested parallel corpus. We found that fine-tuning an unsupervised model with this filtered data set significantly reduces the noise in the translations so-generated, comfortably outperforming the state-of-the-art for all language pairs studied. In particular, for Java $\to$ Python and Python $\to$ C++ we outperform the best previous methods by more than 16% and 24% respectively, reducing the error rate by more than 35%.