Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.36584

Benchmarking LLM Agents for Behaviorally Adequate Test Generation from Software Requirements

Binhang Qi·Yiming Liu·Yun Lin·Yangjie Zhou·Hailong Sun·Jin Song Dong
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

As large language model agents increasingly compile natural-language requirements into repository-level code, requirement-to-test generation grows in importance to provide validation constraints (or harness) to guide code generation. Yet it remains unclear whether current agents can generate tests that validate the required behavior when the implementation of that behavior is withheld. Existing test-generation benchmarks mostly focus on white-box testing, whereas the requirement--test-related study usually requires evaluation on semantic alignment between the given documents and the generated tests. We introduce Req2Test-Bench, a benchmark containing 5,086 execution-validated instances recovered from developer-authored behavior-driven development (BDD) artifacts in 8 open-source projects, spanning 5 programming languages and 4 BDD frameworks. Each instance pairs a natural-language requirement in Gherkin with its developer-written Test Implementation. Given the requirement, target interfaces of the required behavior, an agent must generate a complete, potentially multi-file Test Implementation. Evaluation of 8 agent--model--reasoning configurations reveals a substantial gap between execution success and behavioral adequacy, which is measured strictly as kill-completeness: a kill-complete test kills every mutant that the ground-truth test kills. The best-performing configuration, Codex with DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash, produces passing tests for 82.8% of instances, yet only 33.8% are behaviorally adequate. We find that (1) scaling up agents yields sharply diminishing returns in behavioral adequacy relative to generation cost; (2) under-specified requirements cause the information gap, including ambiguous setup and implicit expected outcomes; and (3) requirement-grounded harnesses that steer agent non-determinism offer a promising direction for improvement.

Explore related subjects

cs.SEcs.AI

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Binhang Qi, Yiming Liu, Yun Lin, Yangjie Zhou, Hailong Sun, Jin Song Dong. 2026-10-27. Benchmarking LLM Agents for Behaviorally Adequate Test Generation from Software Requirements. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.36584

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

SemLoc: Structured Grounding of Free-Form LLM Reasoning for Fault Localization

Large language models (LLMs) can describe what a piece of code should compute, but they do so in free-form text. Such text cannot be checked against program executions, and it does not reveal whether a statement is correct. We present SemLoc, which turns LLM reasoning into executable, verifiable semantic constraints. With structured semantic grounding, the LLM writes each property as a constraint with a fixed category, attached to an anchor in the code graph, such as a variable definition, branch, loop, or return. SemLoc inserts each constraint as a runtime check and runs the tests, which yields a semantic violation spectrum over passing and failing tests. Counterfactual verification then patches the code at an anchor and reruns the tests; a patch that a constraint suggests counts as verified only if all tests then pass. We study SemLoc on fault localization, where the tests serve as the oracle for verification, with four LLMs on QuixBugs and on SemBugs, a new dataset of 809 real bugs from 750 GitHub projects. The constraints are executable: 99.4% become runtime checks, and on programs where coverage ties the faulty line with at least half of the covered lines, their violations alone rank it first in 40.9% of the cases, compared with 2.2% for spectrum-based fault localization and 7.0% for Daikon invariants. They make the LLM's answers verifiable: 68.4% of SemLoc's top-ranked answers carry a patch that the tests confirm, and 93.6% of these are correct, which the LLM's own confidence cannot match. SemLoc's first-rank accuracy does not differ significantly, for any of the four LLMs, from that of an LLM given the same inputs (81.4% vs. 82.0%), and it far exceeds that of an LLM that sees only the function (50.0%).

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

Choosing Coding-Agent Benchmarks for Practice: Lessons from Task Demands and Agent Behaviour

Software teams evaluating coding agents need evidence that reflects the changes they expect those agents to make. Benchmark scores summarize how often an agent resolves tasks under broad labels such as bug fixing and feature implementation, but provide little guidance on whether the evaluated work resembles a team's workload. To support this decision, we characterize 2,487 tasks from five public benchmarks and analyze 14,922 runs of six agent configurations. We introduce the Spread-Novelty-Centrality (SNC) profile to describe how the reference solution is distributed across files and directories, how much it adds relative to what it removes, and the dependencies, history, and complexity of the code it touches. We also compare the scope of agent patches and their file exploration. Every pair of benchmarks differs on at least two SNC axes, including benchmarks with the same task label. Among tasks resolved by Claude Opus 4.6, patches are larger than the reference on FeatBench and smaller on FeatureBench. Across the six configurations, resolved runs tend to involve less distributed changes and code with lower values on the Centrality indicators, while the patch sizes associated with resolution differ between the Claude and Qwen configurations. These observations suggest that practitioners should select evaluation tasks based on their change characteristics, inspect the information provided in task descriptions, and assess patch scope alongside test outcomes. We explain how teams can apply this analysis to completed changes and identify the additional evidence needed before using it for task assignment or review automation.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

Knowing When to Stop: The Evidence-Action Gap in Coding Agents

Coding agents are trained to complete tasks, and they keep trying even when the environment makes completion impossible. The evidence that only outside help can restore progress usually appears within a few steps, yet agents rarely act on it: they over-persist, attempt undesired workarounds, and claim success the record does not support -- a phenomenon we call evidence-action gap. To measure it, we introduce ImpasseBench, which injects twelve realistic environment blockers into otherwise solvable repair tasks and marks, in each trajectory, the step at which the collected evidence becomes sufficient. Scoring actions relative to that step separates appropriate effort from over-persistence and premature handoff. Across eight frontier models and 19,371 trajectories, we find that nearly every run that needs outside help collects sufficient evidence, yet a third still exhaust their budget, and every unsafe request we detect comes after that point. Fortunately, an escalation tool, or an external monitor for models that ignore the tool, already guards against much of this behavior: the tool cuts budget exhaustion from 34.0% to 6.7%, and the monitor nearly triples task success after environment restoration. Even then, a fired escalation is not yet a useful handoff: tickets reliably name the blocker but often omit the agent's own progress and verification status. Taken together, we argue that knowing when to stop therefore needs explicit support, both in the tool that lets an agent hand off and in the report it leaves behind.

cs.SE↗