mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

CCTEST: Testing and Repairing Code Completion Systems

arXiv 2208.08289 ↗First posted 17 Aug 2022cs.SEcited by 35

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Code completion, a highly valuable topic in the software development domain, has been increasingly promoted for use by recent advances in large language models (LLMs). To date, visible LLM-based code completion frameworks such as GitHub Copilot and GPT are trained using deep learning over vast quantities of unstructured text and open source code. As the paramount component and the cornerstone in daily programming tasks, code completion has largely boosted professionals' efficiency in building real-world software systems. In contrast to this flourishing market, we find that code completion systems often output suspicious results, and to date, an automated testing and enhancement framework for code completion systems is not available. This research proposes CCTEST, a framework to test and repair code completion systems in blackbox settings. CCTEST features a set of novel mutation strategies, namely program structure-correlated (PSC) mutations, to generate mutated code completion inputs. Then, it detects inconsistent outputs, representing possibly erroneous cases, from all the completed code cases. Moreover, CCTEST repairs the code completion outputs by selecting the output that mostly reflects the "average" appearance of all output cases, as the final output of the code completion systems. We detected a total of 33,540 inputs (with a true positive rate of 86%) that can trigger erroneous cases from eight popular LLM-based code completion systems. With repairing, we show that the accuracy of code completion systems is notably increased by 40% and 67% with respect to BLEU score and Levenshtein edit similarity.

Key facts. Cited by 35 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 17 Aug 2022.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2022: 1; 2023: 8; 2024: 15; 2025: 9; 2026: 2.

35 papers.

Sort:

By area:

  1. 2023Unifying Large Language Models and Knowledge Graphs: A Roadmapcited by 668
  2. 2023Large Language Models for Software Engineering: A Systematic Literature Reviewcited by 399
  3. 2022Multi-lingual Evaluation of Code Generation Modelscited by 159
  4. 2023Domain Specialization as the Key to Make Large Language Models Disruptive: A Comprehensive Surveycited by 135
  5. 2024Evolutionary Computation in the Era of Large Language Model: Survey and Roadmapcited by 90
  6. 2023Split and Merge: Aligning Position Biases in LLM-based Evaluatorscited by 72
  7. 2024SelfDefend: LLMs Can Defend Themselves against Jailbreaking in a Practical Mannercited by 63
  8. 2024Bugs in Large Language Models Generated Code: An Empirical Studycited by 60
  9. 2024Automatically Generating UI Code from Screenshot: A Divide-and-Conquer-Based Approachcited by 24
  10. 2024Testing and Understanding Erroneous Planning in LLM Agents through Synthesized User Inputscited by 22
  11. 2023Benchmarking and Explaining Large Language Model-based Code Generation: A Causality-Centric Approachcited by 15
  12. 2024Black-Box Adversarial Attacks on LLM-Based Code Completioncited by 14
23 more
  1. 2025On Benchmarking Code LLMs for Android Malware Analysiscited by 13
  2. 2024API-guided Dataset Synthesis to Finetune Large Code Modelscited by 11
  3. 2024LLMs Can Defend Themselves Against Jailbreaking in a Practical Manner: A Vision Papercited by 10
  4. 2023Pitfalls in Language Models for Code Intelligence: A Taxonomy and Surveycited by 9
  5. 2023Turbulence: Systematically and Automatically Testing Instruction-Tuned Large Language Models for Codecited by 9
  6. 2025IP Leakage Attacks Targeting LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systemscited by 8
  7. 2024An Empirical Study on Capability of Large Language Models in Understanding Code Semanticscited by 7
  8. 2025Small Models, Big Tasks: An Exploratory Empirical Study on Small Language Models for Function Callingcited by 7
  9. 2023VRPTEST: Evaluating Visual Referring Prompting in Large Multimodal Modelscited by 6
  10. 2024Analyzing Prompt Influence on Automated Method Generation: An Empirical Study with Copilotcited by 6
  11. 2024Generating executable oracles to check conformance of client code to requirements of JDK Javadocs using LLMscited by 6
  12. 2025RAG or Fine-tuning? A Comparative Study on LCMs-based Code Completion in Industrycited by 5
  13. 2025How Safe Are AI-Generated Patches? A Large-scale Study on Security Risks in LLM and Agentic Automated Program Repair on SWE-benchcited by 5
  14. 2025CASCADE: LLM-Powered JavaScript Deobfuscator at Googlecited by 5
  15. 2025Understanding and Bridging the Planner-Coder Gap: A Systematic Study on the Robustness of Multi-Agent Systems for Code Generationcited by 4
  16. 2026PairCoder++: Pair Programming as a Universal Paradigm for Verified Code-Driven Multimodal and Structured-Artifact Generationcited by 4
  17. 2024An Empirical Study on Large Language Models in Accuracy and Robustness under Chinese Industrial Scenarioscited by 3
  18. 2025Reasoning as a Resource: Optimizing Fast and Slow Thinking in Code Generation Modelscited by 3
  19. 2026RepoMirage: Probing Repository Context Reasoning in Code Agents with Perturbationscited by 3
  20. 2024Code Vulnerability Repair with Large Language Model using Context-Aware Prompt Tuningcited by 2
  21. 2024Evaluation and Improvement of Fault Detection for Large Language Modelscited by 1
  22. 2025TREAT: A Code LLMs Trustworthiness / Reliability Evaluation and Testing Frameworkcited by 1
  23. 2024Contextual Augmented Multi-Model Programming (CAMP): A Hybrid Local-Cloud Copilot Frameworkcited by 0