arXiv preprint ·
Can AI Guide Testing Without Generating Tests? A Comparative Study of AI-Assisted Unit Testing
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Recent advances in generative AI have enabled assistants to generate increasingly sophisticated executable unit tests. However, novices may accept these outputs without independently identifying what to test, evaluating test-suite completeness, or verifying correctness, potentially limiting opportunities to develop essential testing skills. Although prior work has explored AI-assisted test generation and feedback-oriented programming tutors, little is known about whether AI can support novices' testing practices without generating tests for them. To investigate this, we introduce TestCompass, a generative AI tutor that provides targeted feedback on weaknesses in students' test suites without generating executable tests. In a classroom study with 18 students, we compared TestCompass with a general AI assistant across two Java unit-testing tasks, examining students' testing behaviors, test-suite quality, and subjective experiences. We found that participants using the general-purpose AI assistant produced more tests, whereas TestCompass participants spent more time developing and verifying tests themselves. However, most test-suite quality measures were comparable between conditions, and TestCompass participants achieved similar requirement coverage with significantly fewer test methods ($p=0.012$) in one task. Neither group reported short-term improvements in perceived testing knowledge or confidence. These findings suggest that feedback-oriented AI can support meaningful testing outcomes while preserving opportunities for hands-on testing practice, offering a complementary approach to AI-assisted testing education.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Software Engineering
Thinking-in-Bets at Test Time Reduces Sycophantic Revisions in LLM Agents
ProCerDCL: Query-Efficient Black-Box Probabilistic Verification of Deep Learning Compiler Optimization
The Physical Cost of Context: Quality-Constrained Resource Accounting for Coding Agents
From Ripple to Boundary: Deterministic Impact Boundaries for LLM-Based Software Evolution
Arya Forge: Auditing Validation and Release Approval for Financial Instruction Data
Get the few papers worth your time in Software Engineering every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.