# Heterogeneous Prompting and Execution Feedback for SWE Issue Test Generation and Selection

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.06365 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.06365/

## Key facts

- Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- First posted on arXiv 8 Aug 2025.

## Built on by (most cited first, 10 of 10)

- [Investigating Test Overfitting on SWE-bench](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.16858/) (2025)
- [Dynamic Cogeneration of Bug Reproduction Test in Agentic Program Repair](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.19066/) (2026)
- [Beyond Fail-to-Pass: Iterative Hardening of Co-Generated Bug Reproduction Tests and Fixes](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.19843/) (2026)
- [ExecCritic: Learn to Test, Test to Improve for Coding Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.09133/) (2026)
- [Resolving Java Code Repository Issues with iSWE Agent](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.11356/) (2026)
- [EvoOtter: Evolutionary Reproduction Test Generator](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.02854/) (2026)
- [ReProAgent: Tool-Augmented Multi-Stage Agentic Generation of Bug Reproduction Tests from Issue Reports](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.09123/) (2026)
- [SWE-Spot: Building Small Repo-Experts with Repository-Centric Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.21649/) (2026)
- [DPIAgent: Divide, Protocol, Isolate for Agentic Reproduction Test Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.23341/) (2026)
- [Test-Driven Approaches to Software Engineering with Large Language Models: A Survey of Phases, Tasks, and Agent Skills](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.12012/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

A software engineering issue (SWE issue) is easier to resolve when accompanied by a reproduction test. Unfortunately, most issues do not come with functioning reproduction tests, so this paper explores how to generate them automatically. The primary challenge in this setting is that the code to be tested is either missing or wrong, as evidenced by the existence of the issue in the first place. This has held back test generation for this setting: without the correct code to execute, it is difficult to leverage execution feedback to generate good tests. This paper introduces novel techniques for leveraging execution feedback to get around this problem, implemented in a new reproduction test generator called e-Otter++. Experiments show that e-Otter++ represents a leap ahead in the state-of-the-art for this problem, generating tests with an average fail-to-pass rate of 63% on the TDD-Bench Verified benchmark.