Papers › A Large-scale Empirical Study on Fine-tuning Large Language Models for Unit Testing

A Large-scale Empirical Study on Fine-tuning Large Language Models for Unit Testing

21 Dec 2024arXiv:2412.16620links table onlyarchive 2025-07-28

Ye Shang, Quanjun Zhang, Chunrong Fang, Siqi Gu, Jianyi Zhou, Zhenyu Chen

The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.

Unit testing plays a pivotal role in software development, improving software quality and reliability. However, generating effective test cases manually is time-consuming, prompting interest in unit testing research. Recently, Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown potential in various unit testing tasks, including test generation, assertion generation, and test evolution, but existing studies are limited in scope and lack a systematic evaluation of the effectiveness of LLMs. To bridge this gap, we present a large-scale empirical study on fine-tuning LLMs for unit testing. Our study involves three unit testing tasks, five benchmarks, eight evaluation metrics, and 37 popular LLMs across various architectures and sizes, consuming over 3,000 NVIDIA A100 GPU hours. We focus on three key research questions: (1) the performance of LLMs compared to state-of-the-art methods, (2) the impact of different factors on LLM performance, and (3) the effectiveness of fine-tuning versus prompt engineering. Our findings reveal that LLMs outperform existing state-of-the-art approaches on all three unit testing tasks across nearly all metrics, highlighting the potential of fine-tuning LLMs in unit testing tasks. Furthermore, large-scale, decoder-only models achieve the best results across tasks, while encoder-decoder models perform better under the same parameter scale. Additionally, the comparison of the performance between fine-tuning and prompt engineering approaches reveals the considerable potential capability of the prompt engineering approach in unit testing tasks. We then discuss the concerned issues on the test generation task, including data leakage issues, bug detection capabilities, and metrics comparisons. Finally, we further pinpoint carious practical guidelines for LLM-based approaches to unit testing tasks in the near future.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

5 samples harvested; 5 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 0 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 5 of the 5 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from iSEngLab/LLM4UT_Empirical. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections