arXiv (All)
open access
How effective are traditional test criteria at detecting bugs in large language models generated code?
Test adequacy criteria are widely used to evaluate and guide software testing. Although prior research has extensively examined these criteria using human-written programs, faults, and tests, the increasing adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) for code generation raises important questions about
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- A Survey on Large Language Models for Code Generation#1135850
- ClarifyCodeBench: Evaluating LLMs on Clarifying Ambiguous Requirements for Code Generation#798985
- ClarifyCodeBench: Evaluating LLMs on Clarifying Ambiguous Requirements for Code Generation#797571
- Assessing the Promise and Pitfalls of ChatGPT for Automated CS1-Driven Code Generation#1141217
- Repository-Level Solidity Code Generation with Large Language Models: From Prompting to Fine-Tuning#290646
Record · ID 987077
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive