# On the Diffusion of Test Smells in LLM-Generated Unit Tests

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.10628 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.10628/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- First posted on arXiv 14 Oct 2024.

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [Model Context Protocol (MCP) Tool Descriptions Are Smelly! Towards Improving AI Agent Efficiency with Augmented MCP Tool Descriptions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.14878/) (2026)
- [ReCatcher: Towards LLMs Regression Testing for Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.19390/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

LLMs promise to transform unit test generation from a manual burden into an automated solution. Yet, beyond metrics such as compilability or coverage, little is known about the quality of LLM-generated tests, particularly their susceptibility to test smells, design flaws that undermine readability and maintainability. This paper presents the first multi-benchmark, large-scale analysis of test smell diffusion in LLM-generated unit tests. We contrast LLM outputs with human-written suites (as the reference for real-world practices) and SBST-generated tests from EvoSuite (as the automated baseline), disentangling whether LLMs reproduce human-like flaws or artifacts of synthetic generation. Our study draws on 20,505 class-level suites from four LLMs (GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Mistral 7B, Mixtral 8x7B), 972 method-level cases from TestBench, 14,469 EvoSuite tests, and 779,585 human-written tests from 34,635 open-source Java projects. Using two complementary detection tools (TsDetect and JNose), we analyze prevalence, co-occurrence, and correlations with software attributes and generation parameters. Results show that LLM-generated tests consistently manifest smells such as Assertion Roulette and Magic Number Test, with patterns strongly influenced by prompting strategy, context length, and model scale. Comparisons reveal overlaps with human-written tests, raising concerns of potential data leakage from training corpora while EvoSuite exhibits distinct, generator-specific flaws. These findings highlight both the promise and the risks of LLM-based test generation, and call for the design of smell-aware generation frameworks, prompt engineering strategies, and enhanced detection tools to ensure maintainable, high-quality test code.