AI-Assisted Unit Test Writing and Test-Driven Code Refactoring: A Case Study

Many software systems originate as prototypes or minimum viable products (MVPs), developed with an emphasis on delivery speed and responsiveness to changing requirements rather than long-term code maintainability. While effective for rapid delivery, this approach can result in codebases that are difficult to modify, presenting a significant opportunity cost in the era of AI-assisted or even AI-led programming. In this paper, we present a case study of using coding models for automated unit test generation and subsequent safe refactoring, with proposed code changes validated by passing tests. The study examines best practices for iteratively generating tests to capture existing system behavior, followed by model-assisted refactoring under developer supervision. We describe how this workflow constrained refactoring changes, the errors and limitations observed in both phases, the efficiency gains achieved, when manual intervention was necessary, and how we addressed the weak value misalignment we observed in models. Using this approach, we generated nearly 16,000 lines of reliable unit tests in hours rather than weeks, achieved up to 78\% branch coverage in critical modules, and significantly reduced regression risk during large-scale refactoring. These results illustrate software engineering's shift toward an empirical science, emphasizing data collection and constraining mechanisms that support fast, safe iteration.

Bayesian Elicitation with LLMs: Model Size Helps, Extra "Reasoning" Doesn't Always

Large language models (LLMs) have been proposed as alternatives to human experts for estimating unknown quantities with associated uncertainty, a process known as Bayesian elicitation. We test this by asking eleven LLMs to estimate population statistics, such as health prevalence rates, personality trait distributions, and labor market figures, and to express their uncertainty as 95\% credible intervals. We vary each model's reasoning effort (low, medium, high) to test whether more "thinking" improves results. Our findings reveal three key results. First, larger, more capable models produce more accurate estimates, but increasing reasoning effort provides no consistent benefit. Second, all models are severely overconfident: their 95\% intervals contain the true value only 9--44\% of the time, far below the expected 95\%. Third, a statistical recalibration technique called conformal prediction can correct this overconfidence, expanding the intervals to achieve the intended coverage. In a preliminary experiment, giving models web search access degraded predictions for already-accurate models, while modestly improving predictions for weaker ones. Models performed well on commonly discussed topics but struggled with specialized health data. These results indicate that LLM uncertainty estimates require statistical correction before they can be used in decision-making.