LLM Based Input Space Partitioning Testing for Library APIs
Jiageng Li, Zhen Dong, Chong Wang, Haozhen You, Cen Zhang, Yang Liu, Xin Peng
Abstract
Automated library APIs testing is difficult as it requires exploring a vast space of parameter inputs that may involve objects with complex data types. Existing search based approaches, with limited knowledge of relations between object states and program branches, often suffer from the low efficiency issue, i.e., tending to generate invalid inputs. Symbolic execution based approaches can effectively identify such relations, but fail to scale to large programs. In this work, we present an LLM-based input space partitioning testing approach, LISP, for library APIs. The approach lever-ages LLMs to understand the code of a library API under test and perform input space partitioning based on its understanding and rich common knowledge. Specifically, we provide the signature and code of the API under test to LLMs, with the expectation of obtaining a text description of each input space partition of the API under test. Then, we generate inputs through employing the generated text description to sample inputs from each partition, ultimately resulting in test suites that systematically explore the program behavior of the API. We evaluate LISP on more than 2,205 library API meth-ods taken from 10 popular open-source Java libraries (e.g., <tex xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"></tex>p<tex xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"></tex>che/commons-lang with 2.6k stars, guava with 48.8k stars on GitHub). Our experiment results show that LISP is effective in library API testing. It significantly outperforms state-of-the-art tool EvoSuite in terms of edge coverage. On average, LISP achieves 67.82 % branch coverage, surpassing EvoSuite by 1.21 times. In total, LISP triggers 404 exceptions or errors in the experiments, and discovers 13 previously unknown vulnerabilities during evaluation, which have been assigned CVE IDs.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Cited by top-tier papers2
- LLMs Meet Library Evolution: Evaluating Deprecated API Usage in LLM-Based Code CompletionChong Wang, Kaifeng Huang, Jian Zhang, Yebo Feng et al.ICSE 2025 · 3 citations
- RESTOR: Automated Test Oracle Generation for RESTful APIs via Reinforcement LearningXun Zhou, Zhen Dong, Mingyu Ren, Qiang Li et al.ISSTA 2026
Builds on18
- Language Models are Few-Shot LearnersTom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 64,255 citations
- Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language ModelsJason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 22,562 citations
- Finetuned Language Models are Zero-Shot LearnersJason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Y. Zhao, Kelvin Guu et al.ICLR 2022 · 4,966 citations
- Language Models as Zero-Shot Planners: Extracting Actionable Knowledge for Embodied AgentsWenlong Huang, Pieter Abbeel, Deepak Pathak, Igor MordatchICML 2022 · 1,539 citations
- Automated Program Repair in the Era of Large Pre-trained Language ModelsChunqiu Steven Xia, Yuxiang Wei, Lingming ZhangICSE 2023 · 321 citations
Related papers
- HITS: High-coverage LLM-based Unit Test Generation via Method SlicingZejun Wang, Kaibo Liu, Ge Li, Zhi JinASE 2024 · 29 citations
- Do LLMs Generate Useful Test Oracles? An Empirical Study with an Unbiased DatasetDavide Molinelli, Luca Di Grazia, Alberto Martin-Lopez, Michael D. Ernst et al.ASE 2025 · 3 citations
- No Harness, No Problem: Oracle-guided Harnessing for Auto-generating C API Fuzzing HarnessesGabriel Sherman, Stefan NagyICSE 2025 · 1 citation
- FuzzGen: Automatic Fuzzer GenerationKyriakos K. Ispoglou, Daniel Austin, Vishwath Mohan, Mathias PayerUSENIX Security 2020
- Automatic Unit Test Generation for Machine Learning Libraries: How Far Are We?Song Wang, Nishtha Shrestha, Abarna Kucheri Subburaman, Junjie Wang et al.ICSE 2021 · 36 citations
