Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies
← Back to explorer

TestEvo-Bench: An Executable and Live Benchmark for Test and Code Co-Evolution

Jiale Amber Wang, Kaiyuan Wang, Pengyu Nie · Jul 2, 2026 · Citations: 0

Automatic Metrics
Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Software tests and code evolve together: a code change should be followed by new or updated tests that record the new software behavior. Yet existing test generation and update benchmarks often isolate the test from the code change, and rely on static metadata that does not verify whether a test is executable or semantically tied to the code change. This makes it difficult to evaluate whether a test automation agent understands how a code change should propagate into the test suite. We introduce TestEvo-Bench, a benchmark of test and code co-evolution tasks mined from software repositories, with two tracks: in test generation, the agent shall write new tests to capture the new software behavior; in test update, the agent shall adapt failing existing tests to the changed software behavior. Each task is anchored to a real commit history and packaged with environment configuration to support execution-grounded metrics such as pass rate, coverage, and mutation score. TestEvo-Bench is also a live benchmark: each task records the timestamp of the test and code changes, and new tasks are periodically mined by our automated pipeline, so evaluation can be restricted to tasks postdating a model's training cutoff to reduce data leakage risk. The current snapshot contains 746 test generation and 509 test update tasks, curated from 59,950 candidate co-evolution records across 152 open-source Java projects. We experiment with four state-of-the-art agents that combine strong harnesses (Claude Code, Gemini CLI, and SWE-Agent) with strong foundation models (Claude Opus 4.7 and Gemini 3.1 Pro). Results show that they achieve up to 77.5% success rate on test generation and 74.6% on test update. However, success rate is materially lower on the most recent benchmark tasks and drops significantly under limited per-task cost.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

  • This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
  • The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A benchmark-and-metrics comparison anchor.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

5/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 45%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Software tests and code evolve together: a code change should be followed by new or updated tests that record the new software behavior."

Evaluation Modes

partial

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"Software tests and code evolve together: a code change should be followed by new or updated tests that record the new software behavior."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Software tests and code evolve together: a code change should be followed by new or updated tests that record the new software behavior."

Benchmarks / Datasets

partial

Testevo Bench

Useful for quick benchmark comparison.

"We introduce TestEvo-Bench, a benchmark of test and code co-evolution tasks mined from software repositories, with two tracks: in test generation, the agent shall write new tests to capture the new software behavior; in test update, the agent shall adapt failing existing tests to the changed software behavior."

Reported Metrics

partial

Success rate

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"Results show that they achieve up to 77.5% success rate on test generation and 74.6% on test update."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Expertise required: Coding

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Low
  • Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

Testevo-Bench

Reported Metrics

success rate

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Software tests and code evolve together: a code change should be followed by new or updated tests that record the new software behavior.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • Software tests and code evolve together: a code change should be followed by new or updated tests that record the new software behavior.
  • Yet existing test generation and update benchmarks often isolate the test from the code change, and rely on static metadata that does not verify whether a test is executable or semantically tied to the code change.
  • This makes it difficult to evaluate whether a test automation agent understands how a code change should propagate into the test suite.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Simulation environment) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • Yet existing test generation and update benchmarks often isolate the test from the code change, and rely on static metadata that does not verify whether a test is executable or semantically tied to the code change.
  • This makes it difficult to evaluate whether a test automation agent understands how a code change should propagate into the test suite.
  • We introduce TestEvo-Bench, a benchmark of test and code co-evolution tasks mined from software repositories, with two tracks: in test generation, the agent shall write new tests to capture the new software behavior; in test update, the…

Why It Matters For Eval

  • Yet existing test generation and update benchmarks often isolate the test from the code change, and rely on static metadata that does not verify whether a test is executable or semantically tied to the code change.
  • We introduce TestEvo-Bench, a benchmark of test and code co-evolution tasks mined from software repositories, with two tracks: in test generation, the agent shall write new tests to capture the new software behavior; in test update, the…

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Pass: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    Detected: Testevo-Bench

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: success rate

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.