ResTest: Targeted Coverage of Residual Not-Covered Code Using Large Language Models for Web GUI Testing
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Automated web GUI testing (AWGT) approaches explore web applications through GUI actions to achieve code coverage. However, existing approaches, whether random-based, model-based, or reinforcement-learning-based, often struggle to generate continuous and semantically meaningful action sequences for testing complex functionalities, limiting their achievable code coverage. Recent LLM-based approaches partially alleviate this problem but still fall short due to limited capability in inferring testable functionalities and low success rates in executing tasks on complex web applications. In this paper, we propose ResTest, a complementary approach that uses coverage-report-guided LLMs to target residual not-covered code left by existing AWGT approaches. ResTest first runs an existing AWGT approach to broadly explore the application while constructing a state transition graph with summarized information. Once coverage plateaus, ResTest employs an LLM to infer not-covered functionalities based on the state transition graph and coverage report, and then utilizes a specialized LLM-driven GUI agent to execute these functionalities in a targeted manner. Our evaluation on ten open-source web applications shows that ResTest improves three categories of AWGT approaches by 17.52% to 24.36% in average code coverage. Ablation studies further confirm the sustained coverage improvement capability and the contribution of each component.
Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 31 May 2025.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 2; 2026: 5.
7 papers.
- 2026The Evolution of Tool Use in LLM Agents: From Single-Tool Call to Multi-Tool Orchestrationcited by 11
- 2025AI Agents for Web Testing: A Case Study in the Wildcited by 5
- 2026GUITester: Enabling GUI Agents for Exploratory Defect Discoverycited by 5
- 2026WebTestPilot: Agentic End-to-End Web Testing against Natural Language Specification by Inferring Oracles with Symbolized GUI Elementscited by 4
- 2025Agent+P: Guiding UI Agents via Symbolic Planningcited by 1
- 2026AutoPass: Evidence-Guided LLM Agents for Compiler Performance Tuningcited by 1
- 2026WebCraftBench: Evaluating Web Application Generation from a Software Testing Perspectivecited by 0
- 2026WebCraftBench: Evaluating Web Application Generation from a Software Testing Perspective14 Sep 2026
- 2026AutoPass: Evidence-Guided LLM Agents for Compiler Performance Tuning18 Jun 2026
- 2026The Evolution of Tool Use in LLM Agents: From Single-Tool Call to Multi-Tool Orchestration24 Mar 2026
- 2026WebTestPilot: Agentic End-to-End Web Testing against Natural Language Specification by Inferring Oracles with Symbolized GUI Elements12 Feb 2026
- 2026GUITester: Enabling GUI Agents for Exploratory Defect Discovery8 Jan 2026
- 2025Agent+P: Guiding UI Agents via Symbolic Planning7 Oct 2025
- 2025AI Agents for Web Testing: A Case Study in the Wild5 Sep 2025
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026WebTestBench: Evaluating Computer-Use Agents towards End-to-End Automated Web Testing
- 2025TestWeaver: Execution-aware, Feedback-driven Regression Testing Generation with Large Language Models ↗
- 2026Framework and Benchmark for Code-Driven Agentic Testing in Web Development
- 2026WebUIProof: Benchmarking WebUI Code Generators with UI-Agent Execution Harness
- 2024SWT-Bench: Testing and Validating Real-World Bug-Fixes with Code Agents
- 2025Cerberus: Multi-Agent Reasoning and Coverage-Guided Exploration for Static Detection of Runtime Errors
- 2026VibeCheck: Assessing the Quality of LLM-Generated Unit Tests: A Multi-agent Empirical Study across Heterogeneous Repositories
- 2025WebGen-Bench: Evaluating LLMs on Generating Interactive and Functional Websites from Scratch