Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2606.27601

Test Case Selection for Deep Neural Networks: A Replication Study on LLMs for Code

Abstract

Recently, test case selection (TCS) techniques have been explored to support the operational evaluation of deep neural networks (DNNs) under limited testing budgets, where labeling cost is a primary concern and uncovering model failures early is a key objective. Although prior studies report promising results, existing empirical evaluations focus almost exclusively on vision-based DNNs and datasets, leaving it unclear whether prior findings generalize to LLM code models. This paper presents a large-scale replication study of TCS techniques in the context of LLM code models. We re-examine established TCS strategies originally proposed for DNNs and complement them with statistical sampling strategies not previously evaluated for TCS. We assess their effectiveness on three code-related classification tasks: clone detection, vulnerability detection, and technical debt prediction. The study spans 17 task-specific fine-tuned model instances, 7 predictive features, and 13 selection strategies, including 12 feature-aware strategies and simple random sampling (SRS) as a feature-agnostic baseline. We evaluate performance along two dimensions: accuracy estimation and early failure discovery. The results indicate that only a subset of findings reported for vision-based DNNs generalize when TCS is applied to LLMs for code. In particular, uncertainty-based features are effective for early failure discovery, while representation-based features are more robust for accuracy estimation. At the same time, performance varies substantially across tasks and models, indicating that TCS effectiveness is context-dependent. Overall, this study provides empirical evidence on the replicability of TCS techniques beyond vision-based deep learning and offers insights into their use for the operational evaluation of LLMs for code.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Ali Asgari, Mitchell Olsthoorn, Annibale Panichella. 2026-06-25. Test Case Selection for Deep Neural Networks: A Replication Study on LLMs for Code. https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.27601

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks

Vibe coding is a new software development paradigm in which human engineers prompt a large language model (LLM) agent to complete complex coding tasks with little supervision. Although vibe coding is increasingly adopted, is the generated code really safe to deploy in production? To investigate this question, we propose SUSVIBES, a benchmark consisting of 186 feature-request software engineering tasks from real-world open-source projects, for which, human programmers committed vulnerable implementations. We evaluate 12 widely used coding agentic settings with frontier models on the benchmark. Disturbingly, all agents perform poorly in terms of software security. Although 57% of the solutions from SWE-Agent with Claude 4 Sonnet are functionally correct, only 11.8% are secure. Further experiments demonstrate that preliminary security strategies, such as augmenting the feature request with vulnerability hints, cannot mitigate these security issues. Our findings raise serious concerns about the widespread adoption of vibe coding, particularly in security-sensitive applications. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/LeiLiLab/susvibes. The leaderboard is at https://leililab.github.io/susvibes-leaderboard.

cs.SE

Why3-py: A Tool for Formal Verification of Hypothesis Testing and Meta-Analysis in Python

The reproducibility crisis in scientific research has received widespread recognition, thereby increasing the importance of meta-analyses that integrate statistical analyses from multiple studies. However, statistical methods often have ambiguous and implicit underlying assumptions, which can lead to their erroneous applications and interpretations. To address this issue, we propose a formal verification framework for statistical Python programs. Specifically, we present Why3-py, a Python front-end for the Why3 verification platform that transforms Python code into verification-oriented WhyML representations, addressing the challenges arising from Python's dynamic typing and runtime polymorphism. Furthermore, we extend the StatWhy tool to support the verification of meta-analysis methods. These tools enable meta-analysts to identify overlooked assumptions and misuse of analyses, and to verify the correct use of hypothesis testing and meta-analysis methods in Python code.

cs.SE

What is the Difference Between Me and You? Benchmarking the Quality Gap Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Code

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

cs.SE