Papers › Large Language Models are Few-shot Testers: Exploring LLM-based General Bug Reproduction
Large Language Models are Few-shot Testers: Exploring LLM-based General Bug Reproduction
Sungmin Kang, Juyeon Yoon, Shin Yoo
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.
Many automated test generation techniques have been developed to aid developers with writing tests. To facilitate full automation, most existing techniques aim to either increase coverage, or generate exploratory inputs. However, existing test generation techniques largely fall short of achieving more semantic objectives, such as generating tests to reproduce a given bug report. Reproducing bugs is nonetheless important, as our empirical study shows that the number of tests added in open source repositories due to issues was about 28% of the corresponding project test suite size. Meanwhile, due to the difficulties of transforming the expected program semantics in bug reports into test oracles, existing failure reproduction techniques tend to deal exclusively with program crashes, a small subset of all bug reports. To automate test generation from general bug reports, we propose LIBRO, a framework that uses Large Language Models (LLMs), which have been shown to be capable of performing code-related tasks. Since LLMs themselves cannot execute the target buggy code, we focus on post-processing steps that help us discern when LLMs are effective, and rank the produced tests according to their validity. Our evaluation of LIBRO shows that, on the widely studied Defects4J benchmark, LIBRO can generate failure reproducing test cases for 33% of all studied cases (251 out of 750), while suggesting a bug reproducing test in first place for 149 bugs. To mitigate data contamination, we also evaluate LIBRO against 31 bug reports submitted after the collection of the LLM training data terminated: LIBRO produces bug reproducing tests for 32% of the studied bug reports. Overall, our results show LIBRO has the potential to significantly enhance developer efficiency by automatically generating tests from bug reports.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2209.11515")
Code
Syntology Ran 1 of 1 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 0 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 1 ran · our draft was wrong.
By repository: community (archive-listed): 1 sample from 1 repository, 1 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
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
1 sample harvested; 1 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: 1 of the 1 sample is 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 coinse/libro. “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.
140d8ed51e48f8a2 · report
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